Stanley V. Illinois Essay, Research Paper
Stanley v. Illinois
92 S.Ct. 1208 ( 1972 )
Nature of Case: The complainant is Peter Stanley. He said that his rights to equal protection of the jurisprudence under the 14th Amendment have been violated. He believes that the Illinois jurisprudence that makes kids of unwed male parent? s wards of the province upon decease of the female parent violated his rights.
Facts: Joan and Peter Stanley lived intermittently together for 18 old ages, in which they had 3 kids. When Joan Stanley died, Stanley? s kids were declared wards of the province and placed with tribunal appointed defenders after a dependence hearing by the State of Illinois. Stanley claimed that he had ne’er been shown to be an unfit parent. He believed that since married male parents and unwed female parents could non be deprived of their kids without turn outing this, neither should he. The Illinois Supreme Court accepted the fact that Peter Stanley? s softness had non been proven but rejected that he was deprived of his rights under the 14th amendment.
Issue: Did the State of Illinois violate the Equal Protection Clause when it denied Peter Stanley a hearing on his fittingness to maintain his kids?
Keeping: Yes, a hearing is guaranteed by equal protection under the jurisprudence, for both married male parents and unwed female parents & A ; unwed male parents.
Rule: 1. Justice White, speech production for the bulk believes that the determination in this instance is similar to Bell v. Burson, in which held that the province could non strip a individual of there drivers license refering to a hurrying
violation without a hearing. He stated: “The states interest in caring for Stanley?s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanley?s unfitness solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove. 2. They concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody. Denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. 3. The rule of law that justifies the holding of the case is: “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state may neither supply nor hinder” (Prince v. Mass.). 4. “The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.” We observed that the State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents. 5. Indeed, if Stanley is a fit father, the state spites its own articulated goals when it needlessly separates him from his family”. One might fairly say of the Bill of Rights in general, and the Due Process Clause in particular, that they were designed to protect the fragile values of a vulnerable citizenry from the overbearing concern for efficiency and efficacy that may characterize praiseworthy government officials no less, and perhaps more, the mediocre ones.”