Santosky v. Kramer
1982 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Santosky v. Kramer?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), is a Supreme Court case involving the burden of proof for the revocation of parental rights. The case arose when the Ulster County, New York, Department of Social Services sought to revoke John Santosky II and Annie Santosky's parental rights to their three children. Under Section 622 of the New York State Family Court Act, the state was permitted to revoke parental rights to a natural child if, after a fair preponderance of the evidence, a court found "permanent neglect." The New York State Family Court found such neglect by using the "fair preponderance" standard. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the burden of proof used.
Santosky v. Kramer | |
---|---|
Argued November 10, 1981 Decided March 24, 1982 | |
Full case name | John Santosky, et al. v. Bernhardt S. Kramer, Commissioner, Ulster County Department of Social Services, et al. |
Docket no. | 80-5889 |
Citations | 455 U.S. 745 (more) 102 S. Ct. 1388; 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 |
Case history | |
Prior | Matter of John AA, 75 A.D.2d 910, 427 N.Y.S.2d 319 (App. Div., 3d Dept. 1980); cert. granted, 450 U.S. 993 (1981). |
Holding | |
New York State's standard of fair preponderance of the evidence for the revocation of parental rights violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before revoking parental rights, the State must satisfy a burden of at least clear and convincing evidence. Holding of the lower court reversed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Stevens |
Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White, O'Connor |
In a 5–4 opinion written by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed and vacated the Appellate Division's ruling, holding that states seeking to sever parental rights irrevocably must show at least clear and convincing evidence of neglect. Justice William Rehnquist, joined by three others, dissented, on the grounds that the majority's focus on a single aspect of the law disregarded the fairness of the scheme as a whole. The ruling has since been criticized for its intrusion into state affairs. Because of the ruling, all states previously using the fair preponderance standard changed to the clear and convincing standard, but California has since abandoned the clear and convincing standard and returned to the fair preponderance standard.