Stanley V. Illinois :: essays research papers

Stanley v. IllinoisNature of Case The plaintiff is Peter Stanley. He said that his rights to couple protection of the law under the 14th Amendment bear been mess upd. He believes that the Illinois law that makes children of unwed fathers wards of the evoke upon dying of the m opposite violated his rights.Facts Joan and Peter Stanley lived intermittently together for 18 years, in which they had 3 children. When Joan Stanley died, Stanleys children were declargond wards of the state and placed with court constitute guardians after a dependency hearing by the State of Illinois. Stanley claimed that he had never been shown to be an unfit parent. He believed that since married fathers and unwed mothers could non be deprived of their children without proving this, neither should he. The Illinois Supreme Court accepted the occurrence that Peter Stanleys unfitness had not been proven but jilted that he was deprived of his rights under the 14th amendment.Issue Did the State of Illin ois violate the Equal Protection Clause when it denied Peter Stanley a hearing on his fitness to keep his children?Holding Yes, a hearing is guaranteed by equal protection under the law, for both married fathers and unwed mothers & unwed fathers.Rule 1. Justice White, speaking for the majority believes that the decision in this wooing is similar to Bell v. Burson, in which held that the state could not deprive a person of there drivers license pertaining to a speeding violation without a hearing. He stated "The states interest in caring for Stanleys children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanleys unfitness whole 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 Illino is parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. 3. The rule of law that justifies the keeping of the case is "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside offshoot 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 demonstrate protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the ninth Amendment.