Santosky v Kramer 455 U.S. 745 Year 1982

of 33
9 views
PDF
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,Date/Time of Request: Client Identifier: Database: Citation Text: Lines: Documents: Images: Santosky v. Kramer 455 u.s 745 (1982) The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters, West and their affiliates. Monday, November 28, 2011 10:06 Eastern PATRON ACCESS SCTFIND 102 S.Ct. 1388 1952 1 0 102 S.Ct. 1388 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (Cite as: 455 U.S. 745, 102 S
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,- Date/Time of Request: Monday, November 28, 2011 10:06 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: SCTFINDCitation Text: 102 S.Ct. 1388Lines: 1952Documents: 1Images: 0 Santosky v. Kramer 455 u.s 745 (1982) The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.  Supreme Court of the United StatesJohn SANTOSKY II and Annie Santosky, Petition-ersv.Bernhardt S. KRAMER, Commissioner, UlsterCounty Department of Social Services, et al.No. 80-5889.Argued Nov. 10, 1981.Decided March 24, 1982.Parents appealed from judgment of the FamilyCourt, Ulster County, Elwyn, J., which adjudgedtheir children to be permanently neglected. TheNew York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, af-firmed,75 A.D.2d 910, 427 N.Y.S.2d319.The New York Court of Appeals dismissed the parents'appeal. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court,Justice Blackmun, held that before a state maysever completely and irrevocably the rights of par-ents in their natural child, due process requires thatthe state support its allegations by at least clear andconvincing evidence, and, therefore, the “fair pre-ponderance of the evidence” standard prescribed bythe New York Family Court Act for the terminationof parental rights denied the parents due process.Judgment vacated and remanded.Justice Rehnquist, filed a dissenting opinion inwhich Chief Justice Burger, Justice White andJustice O'Connor, joined.West Headnotes [1]Child Custody 76D 42 76DChild Custody76DIIGrounds and Factors in General76DII(B)Factors Relating to Parties Seeking Custody76Dk42k. Right of Biological Parent asto Third Persons in General.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 285k2(3.3)) Child Custody 76D 68 76DChild Custody76DIIGrounds and Factors in General76DII(B)Factors Relating to Parties Seeking Custody76Dk68k. Previous Abandonment or Re-linquishment by Custodian.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 285k2(3.7))Fundamental liberty interest of natural parentsin care, custody and management of their child doesnot evaporate simply because they have not beenmodel parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to State.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [2]Infants 211 191 211Infants211VIIIDependent, Neglected, and DelinquentChildren211VIII(D)Proceedings 211k191k. In General.Most Cited Cases Even when blood relationships are strained,parents retain vital interest in preventing irretriev-able destruction of their family life; if anything,persons faced with forced dissolution of their par-ental rights have more critical need for proceduralprotections than do those resisting state interventioninto ongoing family affairs.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [3]Infants 211 194.1 211Infants211VIIIDependent, Neglected, and DelinquentChildren211VIII(D)Proceedings 211k194Nature, Form, and Purpose of Proceedings211k194.1k . In General.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 211k194)When state moves to destroy weakened familial102 S.Ct. 1388 Page 1455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (Cite as: 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388) © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.  bonds, it must provide parents with fundamentallyfair procedures.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [4]Constitutional Law 92 4403.5 92Constitutional Law92XXVIIDue Process92XXVII(G)Particular Issues and Applica- tions92XXVII(G)18Families and Children92k4403.5k . Removalor Termination of Parental Rights.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k4393, 92k274(5))Nature of process due in parental rights termin-ation proceedings turns on balancing of private in-terests affected by proceedings; risk of error createdby state's chosen procedure; and countervailinggovernmental interest supporting use of challengedprocedure.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends.5,14. [5]Constitutional Law 92 4006 92Constitutional Law92XXVIIDue Process92XXVII(E)CivilActions and Proceedings 92k3999Evidence and Witnesses92k4006k.Degree or Standard of  Proof.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k311)In any given proceeding, minimum standard of proof tolerated by due process requirement reflectsnot only weight of private and public interests af-fected, but also societal judgment about how risk of error should be distributed between litigants.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [6]Federal Courts 170B 416 170BFederal Courts170BVIState Laws as Rules of Decision170BVI(C)Application to Particular Matters 170Bk416k. Evidence Law.Most CitedCasesMinimum standard of proof mandated by dueprocess is question of federal law which SupremeCourt may resolve.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [7]Constitutional Law 92 3888 92Constitutional Law92XXVIIDue Process92XXVII(B)Protections Provided and Deprivations Prohibited in General92k3878Notice and Hearing92k3888k.Review.Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k251.5)Retrospective case-by-case review cannot pre-serve fundamental fairness when class of proceed-ings is governed by constitutionally defective evid-entiary standard.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [8]Constitutional Law 92 3875 92Constitutional Law92XXVIIDue Process92XXVII(B)Protections Provided and Deprivations Prohibited in General92k3875k. Factors Considered; Flexibil-ity and Balancing.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k251.5) Constitutional Law 92 3912 92Constitutional Law92XXVIIDue Process92XXVII(B)Protections Provided and Deprivations Prohibited in General92k3912k. Duration and Timing of Deprivation; Pre- or Post-Deprivation Remedies.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k251.5)Whether loss threatened by particular type of proceeding is sufficiently grave to warrant morethan average certainty on part of fact finder turnson both nature of private interest threatened andpermanency of threatened loss.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [9]Infants 211 179 211Infants211VIIIDependent, Neglected, and DelinquentChildren211VIII(C)Evidence 102 S.Ct. 1388 Page 2455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (Cite as: 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388) © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.  211k175Weight and Sufficiency211k179k.Deprivation, Neglect, or Abuse.Most Cited CasesIn parental rights termination proceeding,private interest affected weighs heavily against useof preponderance of the evidence standard at state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [10]Constitutional Law 92 4403.5 92Constitutional Law92XXVIIDue Process92XXVII(G)Particular Issues and Applica- tions92XXVII(G)18Families and Children92k4403.5k . Removalor Termination of Parental Rights.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k4402, 92k274(5))Until state proves parental unfitness under NewYork law, child and his parents share vital interestin preventing erroneous termination of the naturalrelationship, and, therefore, preponderance of theevidence standard provided under New York lawdoes not satisfy due process clause.N.Y.McKinney'sSocial Service Law §384-b, subds. 4(d), 7(a); N.Y.McKinney'sFamily CourtAct § 622;U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [11]Constitutional Law 92 4403.5 92Constitutional Law92XXVIIDue Process92XXVII(G)Particular Issues and Applica- tions92XXVII(G)18Families and Children92k4403.5k . Removalor Termination of Parental Rights.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k4402, 92k274(5))Preponderance of the evidence standardprovided for in New York statutes governing ter-mination of parental rights upon finding that childis “permanently neglected” does not properly alloc-ate risk of error between parent and child, since, forchild, likely consequence of erroneous failure toterminate is preservation of uneasy status quo, butfor natural parents, consequence of erroneous ter-mination is unnecessary destruction of natural fam-ily, and, therefore, due process mandates standardof proof greater than fair preponderance of theevidence. N.Y.McKinney'sSocial Service Law§384-b, subds. 4(d), 7(a); N.Y.McKinney'sFamilyCourt Act § 622;U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [12]Infants 211 178 211Infants211VIIIDependent, Neglected, and DelinquentChildren211VIII(C)Evidence 211k175Weight and Sufficiency211k178k.Termination of Parental Rights.Most Cited CasesStandard of proof more strict than fair prepon-derance of the evidence is consistent with two stateinterests at stake in parental rights termination pro-ceedings, parens patriae interest in preserving andpromoting child's welfare and fiscal and adminis-trative interest in reducing costs and burden of suchproceedings. N.Y.McKinney'sSocial Service Law §384-b, subds. 1(a)(i, ii, iv), 3(g), 4(e);N.Y.McKinney'sFamily Court Act§ 622; U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. [13]Constitutional Law 92 4403.5 92Constitutional Law92XXVIIDue Process92XXVII(G)Particular Issues and Applica- tions92XXVII(G)18Families and Children92k4403.5k . Removalor Termination of Parental Rights.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k4393, 92k274(5))Before state may sever completely and irrevoc-ably rights of parents in their natural child, due pro-cess requires that state support its allegations by atleast clear and convincing evidence.N.Y.McKinney'sSocial Service Law §384-b, subds. 4(d), 7(a); N.Y.McKinney'sFamily CourtAct § 622;U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5,14. 102 S.Ct. 1388 Page 3455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (Cite as: 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388) © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x