Joan and Peter lived together
and had three kids, but weren't married. Joan died.
Under Illinois law, the
children of unwed fathers became wards of the State upon the death of the
mother. So they took Peter's kids away from him.
Peter sued, arguing that the
removal was an unconstitutional violation of due process and his fundamental right to custody of his children.
Peter also argued that this
was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because married fathers and unwed mothers were
allowed to keep their kids.
Peter had never been shown
to be an unfit parent.
The Illinois Supreme Court
found there was no constitutional violation. Peter appealed.
The Illinois Supreme Court
found that there is a general presumption that unwed fathers are unfit,
and therefore Peter's specific fitness was irrelevant.
The US Supreme Court reversed.
The US Supreme Court found
that the only benefit to the State in not providing due process was to save money (aka administrative
convenience).
The Court found that Peter
had a due process right to
establish his fitness in court.
"Procedure by
presumption is always cheaper and easier than individualized
determination. But when, as here, the procedure forecloses the
determinative issues of competence and care, it needlessly risks running
roughshod over the important interests of both parent and child."
