Opinion ID: 2514340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Fourteenth Amendment Framework

Text: In light of these circumstances, we must determine whether M.P. had a constitutionally protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the only basis M.P. asserts for his claim that he was entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding. The Due Process Clause is invoked only when the State takes action to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 256, 103 S.Ct. 2985, 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983). If life, liberty, or property is at stake, procedural due process requires the State to provide notice of a potential deprivation of the interest and an opportunity to be heard regarding the deprivation. Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall) 223, 233, 17 L.Ed. 531 (1863). It is necessarily implied that both the notice and opportunity to be heard must be provided at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner to comport with the constitutional guarantee. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Pastine, 281 Kan. 1266, 1275, 136 P.3d 457 (2006). In arguing that he has a liberty interest, M.P. relies upon the United States Supreme Court's recognition of a natural parent's right to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her child as a liberty interest far more important than any property right. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Lassiter v. Department of Social Services., 452 U.S. 18, 27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981); see also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (parents have protected liberty interest in controlling their children's religious upbringing); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925) (parents have protected liberty interest in the way they choose to educate their children); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) (parents have protected liberty interest in controlling their children's education). Similarly, this court has long recognized that parental rights are fundamental in nature and are constitutionally protected. In re Adoption of McMullen, 236 Kan. 348, 352, 691 P.2d 17 (1984). Obviously, the liberty interest of a natural parent has its origin in the biological connection between the parent and the child. Nevertheless, a biological relationship does not guarantee the permanency of the parental rights of an unwed natural father. See In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. 53, 77, 169 P.3d 1025 (2007), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 36, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2008) (no parental rights arose for sperm donor who had no written agreement with mother). Rather, [t]he significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. Lehr, 463 U.S. at 262, 103 S.Ct. 2985. The opportunity is lost, however, if the natural father does not come forward to demonstrate[] a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood. 463 U.S. at 261, 103 S.Ct. 2985.