Caban v. Mohammed

Supreme Court of United States
441 U.S. 380 (1979)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state law that grants unwed mothers the absolute right to block an adoption of their child by withholding consent, while denying the same right to unwed fathers who have established a substantial parental relationship, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts:

Abdiel Caban and Maria Mohammed lived together as an unmarried couple from 1968 to 1973, representing themselves as husband and wife.
During their relationship, they had two children, David and Denise; Caban was identified as the father on both birth certificates.
Caban lived with the children as their father and contributed to the support of the family until the end of 1973.
In December 1973, Mohammed left Caban with the children and married appellee Kazin Mohammed the following month.
For the next nine months, Caban maintained regular weekly contact with his children when they visited their maternal grandmother, who lived in the same building.
In September 1974, the children were sent to live with their grandmother in Puerto Rico.
In November 1975, Caban went to Puerto Rico and brought the children back to New York to live with him and his new wife.

Procedural Posture:

Maria and Kazin Mohammed filed custody proceedings in the New York Family Court, which granted them temporary custody of the children.
The Mohammeds subsequently filed a petition in a New York Surrogate's Court to adopt David and Denise.
Abdiel Caban and his new wife filed a cross-petition to adopt the children.
The Surrogate granted the Mohammeds' adoption petition, ruling that Caban's consent was not required under New York law, while the mother's consent was, thus foreclosing Caban's petition.
Caban, the appellant, appealed to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, which affirmed the lower court's decision.
Caban then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, which also affirmed.
Caban appealed the decision of the New York Court of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does New York Domestic Relations Law § 111, which permits an unwed mother, but not an unwed father, to block the adoption of their child simply by withholding consent, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Powell

Yes. A statutory scheme that draws a distinction between the rights of unwed mothers and unwed fathers regarding consent to adoption violates the Equal Protection Clause when that distinction is not substantially related to an important state interest. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, holding that gender-based classifications must serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. The state's asserted interest in promoting adoptions for illegitimate children is not substantially served by a blanket, gender-based distinction that treats all unwed fathers as less fit or less concerned than unwed mothers. In cases like this, where the father has demonstrated a significant and continuous parental relationship, the statutory generalization is an unconstitutional 'overbroad generalization' that discriminates against fathers and enables mothers to arbitrarily terminate paternal rights.

Dissenting - Justice Stewart

No. The gender-based distinction in the New York statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it reflects a careful accommodation of the competing interests of the mother, father, and child. Unwed mothers and fathers are not similarly situated, as the mother's relationship is biologically and socially more certain, especially at birth. The state has a significant interest in facilitating the adoption of illegitimate children to provide them with legitimacy and stable homes, and requiring the consent of only one parent—the mother—is substantially related to that goal. The law does not completely exclude the father, but allows him to be heard on the child's best interests, which is a reasonable and constitutional approach.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

No. The New York law is constitutional because the significant, real-world differences between unwed mothers and fathers justify their differential treatment in the adoption process. From conception through infancy, the mother's role is unique and certain, while the father's is often uncertain or absent. Granting the mother exclusive consent rights, particularly for newborns, facilitates prompt and stable adoptions, which is a compelling state interest. The Court is wrong to invalidate a generally justifiable rule based on an exceptional case; moreover, a gender-neutral rule based on custody would have likely produced the same result here, as the mother had custody.

Analysis:

This decision significantly expanded the constitutional rights of unwed fathers, building on the precedent of Stanley v. Illinois. It established that states cannot rely on gender stereotypes to create a blanket rule denying a committed unwed father the same parental rights as an unwed mother in adoption proceedings. The ruling forces states to adopt more nuanced statutes that consider the actual relationship between a father and his child, rather than just the parent's gender. This case solidifies the application of intermediate scrutiny to gender-based classifications in the context of parental rights, requiring a demonstrable and substantial link between the classification and an important government interest.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Caban v. Mohammed (1979)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature