Roe v. Conn
417 F. Supp. 769, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14264 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to family integrity, requiring states to provide notice and a hearing before removing a child from parental custody, except in emergency situations of immediate harm. Furthermore, statutes permitting the termination of parental rights must be narrowly drawn to address specific harm to the child and cannot be unconstitutionally vague.
Facts:
- Margaret Wambles, an unmarried white woman, gave birth to a son, Richard Roe, on September 15, 1971, and he lived continuously with her.
- Cecil Coppage, a white man who claimed to be Richard's father, had lived with Wambles intermittently but their relationship ended in March 1975.
- On June 1, 1975, Coppage reported to the Montgomery Police that Wambles might be neglecting their son, noting she was living with a black man in a black neighborhood.
- On June 2, 1975, Officer L. T. Conn investigated Wambles's home and found it to be 'relatively clean' with 'adequate food,' and observed that Richard was clothed, clean, and showed no signs of physical abuse.
- A juvenile court judge, Judge Thetford, issued a 'pick-up order' based solely on the information that Wambles was unemployed and that she and her white child were living with a black man in a black neighborhood.
- That evening, Officer Conn and two other officers forcibly removed the crying child from Wambles's arms.
- On August 22, 1975, Coppage executed a declaration of fatherhood before a probate judge, which legitimated Richard Roe and changed his last name to Coppage, all without providing notice to Wambles.
Procedural Posture:
- Margaret Wambles and Richard Roe filed class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.
- The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Alabama's child neglect, legitimation, and name-change statutes.
- The defendants were various state and local officials, including judges, police officers, and social services directors.
- The separate lawsuits were consolidated for trial by the court.
- A three-judge district court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281 to decide the constitutional questions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Alabama statutes that (1) authorize the summary seizure of a child without a prior hearing based on a subjective 'welfare' standard, (2) define a 'neglected child' in vague terms such as 'improper parental care,' and (3) allow a putative father to legitimate a child and change the child's name in an ex parte proceeding violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Three-Judge Court)
Yes. The Alabama statutes violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution recognizes a fundamental right to family integrity, which receives strict judicial scrutiny. The statute authorizing summary seizure of a child based on its 'welfare' violates procedural due process because, absent exigent circumstances involving immediate or threatened harm, the state must provide parents with notice and a hearing before removing a child. The statutory definition of a 'neglected child' is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, as terms like 'improper parental care' and 'unfit home' are subjective and fail to provide adequate notice. To sever the parent-child relationship, the state has a compelling interest only when a child is subjected to real physical or emotional harm and less drastic measures are unavailing. The legitimation and name-change statute violates procedural due process by failing to provide the mother and child with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Finally, the name-change provision violates the Equal Protection Clause by granting the father sole control over the child's surname, a sex-based classification lacking a rational basis.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that 'family integrity' is a fundamental constitutional right subject to strict scrutiny. It significantly raises the bar for state intervention in family life by rejecting vague, subjective standards like 'best interest' or 'welfare' in favor of a concrete 'real harm' standard for removing a child. The decision imposes heightened procedural due process requirements on child welfare agencies, mandating pre-deprivation hearings except in true emergencies. This ruling provides a powerful precedent for challenging overly broad and vague child neglect statutes nationwide and reinforces due process protections in matters of parentage and identity.
