Document: 380 U.S. 545 85 S.Ct. 1187 14 L.Ed.2d 62 R. Wright ARMSTRONG, Jr., Petitioner,v.Salvatore E. MANZO et ux. No. 149. Argued March 9, 1965. Decided April 27, Ewell Lee Smith, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner. William Duncan, El Paso, respondents. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner, Armstrong, and his wife were divorced by a Texas court in 1959. Custody their only child, Molly Page was awarded to Mrs. petitioner granted 'the privilege visiting with said child at reasonable times, places, intervals.' divorce decree ordered pay $50 month daughter's support. In 1960 Armstrong married respondent, Salvatore Manzo. Two years later Manzos filed petition adoption District Court Paso County, Texas, seeking make Manzo legal father Armstrong.1 2 law provides that an such as this one shall not be permitted without written consent child's natural father, except certain specified circumstances. One exceptional circumstance is if 'shall have contributed substantially support during (a) period two (2) commensurate financial ability.' event, judge juvenile county residence may accepted lieu father's consent.2 3 Preliminary filing petition, affidavit court, alleging conclusory terms had 'failed contribute of' 'for excess preceding date.' No notice given affidavit, although well knew precise whereabouts Fort Worth, Texas. On basis without, so far record shows, hearing any kind, promptly issued adoption. same day, alleged 'consent W. herein sought necessary upon grounds has minor ability do years, Judge Juvenile * consented writing adoption.' kind or pendency petition. 4 An investigator appointed made detailed report recommending adoption, few weeks entered. provided accord 'all relationship all rights duties between Child cease determine, hereafter deemed held every purpose its parent fully though naturally born him lawful wedlock,'3 further known Christian Surname Manzo, from day forward.' 5 During entire given, did have, slightest inkling these proceedings. entered, however, wrote petitioner's advising 'I date completed action adopt my daughter change her name Manzo.' immediately relayed news who motion asking 'set aside annulled new trial granted,' ground he been no proceedings.4 6 vacate decree, but set on motion. At introduced evidence, through witnesses depositions, effort show failed 'commensurate ability.'5 conclusion entered order denying providing 'adoption things confirmed.' 7 appealed appropriate civil appeals, ground, among others, erred setting because entry deprived 'of due process law.' appellate affirmed court's judgment,6 Supreme refused application writ error. 8 We certiorari. 379 816, 46, 13 26. questions before us are whether failure notify proceedings render constitutionally invalid, and, so, subsequent served cure constitutional invalidity. 9 disposing first issue, there occasion linger long. It clear give pending violated most rudimentary demands law. 'Many controversies raged about cryptic abstract words Due Process Clause can doubt minimum they require deprivation life, liberty property adjudication preceded opportunity nature case.' Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 306, 313, 70 652, 656, 94 L.Ed. 865. 'An elementary fundamental requirement proceeding which accorded finality reasonably calculated, under circumstances, apprise interested parties afford them present objections. Milliken Meyer, 311 457, 61 339, 278; Grannis Ordean, 234 385, 34 779, 58 1363; Priest Board Trustees Town Las Vegas, 232 604, 443, 751; Roller Holly, 176 398, 20 410, 44 52.' Id., 314, 657. Questions frequently arise adequacy particular form case. See, e.g., Schroeder City New York, 371 208, 83 279, 255; York N.H. H.R. 344 293, 73 299, 97 333; Walker Hutchinson City, 352 112, 77 200, 178; supra. But basic itself doubt, where, here, result judicial permanently deprive legitimate parenthood implies. Cf. May Anderson, 345 528, 533, 840, 843, 1221. 10 Civil Appeals implicitly recognized rule, held, understanding precedents,7 whatever infirmity resulted cured subsequently afforded decree. S.W.2d 412. cannot agree. 11 Had timely Constitution requires, Manzos, moving parties, would burden proving case against defenses might interposed. See Jones Willson, Tex.Civ.App., 285 877; Ex parte Payne, 301 194. incumbent met requisits adoptive law, also prove why required. neither side offered those initiated could prevailed. 12 Instead, faced appearance courtroom task overcoming adverse judge, based finding nonsupport another judge. As placed affirmatively showing limit over involved. burdens thus real, purely theoretical. For 'it plain where proof lies decisive outcome.' Speiser Randall, 357 513, 525, 78 1332, 1342, 1460. Yet imposed Constitution. A heard.' 394, 783. must meaningful time manner. right granting consider anew. Only wiped slate clean. restored position occupied place. His should granted. reasons stated, judgment reversed, remanded inconsistent opinion. 15 ordered. 16 Reversed remanded. joined manifest separate consent. Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stat., Art. 46a, § 6, pertinent part follows: 'Except otherwise Section, living parents child; provided, voluntarily abandon desert adopted, left care, custody, control management other persons, ability, then, either it obtain default, cases residence; Court, then County residence.' does here question validity substantive provisions statute. 9. third paragraph 'At above entitled numbered came heard rendered, your Petitioner never advised notice, actual constructive, required laws even until after rendition judgment, nor attempt way address fact deliberately wrongfully withheld expressed appear, contest proceeding; prevented appearing presenting own fault negligence rather deliberate wrongful acts proceeding.' prayer 'Wherefore, prays vacated, granted.' note 2, 407. Purvin, 405; Dendy Wilson, 142 Tex. 460, 179 269, 151 A.L.R. 1217; DeWitt Brooks, 143 122, 182 687; Johnston Chapman, 279 597.

Category: 3