Caban v. Mohammed

Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court family law case which held that a New York law, which allowed unwed mothers, but not unwed fathers, a veto over the adoption of that couple's children, was discriminatory , and violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 Opinion of the Court

  • 2.1 Dissent

• 3 Subsequent developments

• 4 See also

• 5 References

• 6 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caban_v._Mohammed&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

At the time of this case, § 111 of New York's Domestic Relations Law required any adoption of a child to be limited by the consent of either married parent of a child, but only the mother in the case that the parents had never married. The law, in part, read:

consent to adoption shall be required as follows: . . .

(b) Of the parents ... of a child born in wedlock; [and]

(c) Of the mother ... of a child born out of wedlock. . . .

Abdiel Caban and his partner Maria Gonazles lived together for five years, during which time they had a son, and later, a daughter.

After separating in 1973, Maria later married Kazim Mohammed. Two years later, Kazim filed to legally adopt the children. Caban and his new wife Nina also filed for adoption, but due to § 111, that attempt was blocked, and the Mohammeds' request was granted. Caban appealed unsuccessfully to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division and then the New York Court of Appeals , after which he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing violations of both equal protection and due process .

New York argued for the law's distinction, expressing the concern that allowing an unwed father to veto his child's adoption might have the effect of discouraging adoption, which would not be in the best interests of the children.

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caban_v._Mohammed&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

Justice Lewis Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court split 5–4, with Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. writing the majority opinion. That opinion found that § 111 of New York's Domestic Relations Law unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of sex, conflicting with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, using an intermediate level of judicial scrutiny.

Powell's reasoning argued that Caban's formation of a "natural family", through five years of living with his partner and the children, entitled him to legal rights to those children. Moreover, Powell found that treating mothers and fathers differently in § 111 did not "bear a substantial relation to the State's interest in providing adoptive homes for its illegitimate children."

Powell's opinion declined to decide whether there was also a due process violation, or whether there was an additional equal protection issue in treating fathers differentially depending on whether or not they had been legally married.

Dissent

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caban_v._Mohammed&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Dissent")

Stewart's dissent, on the other hand, found no violation of equal protection. Stewart believed that the process of carrying the child to term was a situational difference between mothers and fathers which, along with the state's interest in having illegitimate children adopted, provided a legitimate basis for the differential treatment of unwed mothers and fathers in § 111. Similarly, Stevens' dissent found a strong interest in promoting adoption and that maternity created a significant difference in physical and psychological parenting between biological mothers and fathers.

Subsequent developments

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caban_v._Mohammed&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Subsequent developments")

As a result of the ruling, Caban regained the visitation rights he had enjoyed before the original decision granting adoption to Kazim Mohammed.

See also

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caban_v._Mohammed&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: See also")

• _Quilloin v. Walcott _ (1978), holding that an absentee and unwed father does not have these rights.

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caban_v._Mohammed&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: References")

1. Jump up to: 1 2 3 4 Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979).
2. Jump up to: 1 2 Hartman, Gary R.; Mersky, Roy M.; Tate, Cindy L. (January 1, 2009). Landmark Supreme Court Cases: The Most Influential Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States . Infobase Publishing. pp. 45–. ISBN  9781438110363 . Retrieved December 29, 2012.
3. ↑ (State), New York; McKinney, William Mark (2010). McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated . West Publishing Company. p. 85. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
4. ↑ Mann, Jim (May 16, 1979). "Unwed dads get aid from high court" . Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved December 30, 2012.[_permanent dead link
   _]
5. ↑ Young, Rowland L. (June 1979). "Supreme Court Report" . ABA Journal. American Bar Association. p. 954. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
6. Jump up to: 1 2 Dolgin, Janet L. (1997). Defining the Family: Law, Technology, and Reproduction in an Uneasy Age . NYU Press. pp. 105–. ISBN  9780814719176 . Retrieved December 30, 2012.
7. ↑ Goldstein, Leslie Friedman (1988). Constitutional Rights Women: Cases in Law & Social Change . Univ of Wisconsin Press. pp. 208 –. ISBN  9780299112448 . Retrieved December 30, 2012.
8. Jump up to: 1 2 Greenhouse, Linda (April 25, 1979). ["Adoption Law Rejected

…