Document: 450 U.S. 382 101 S.Ct. 1495 67 L.Ed.2d 312 John DOE and Jane Roe, appellants,v.State of DELAWARE No. 79-5932 Supreme Court the United States March 9, 1981 Rehearing Denied April 27, 1981. See 451 964, 2036. PER CURIAM. 1 The appeal is dismissed for want a properly presented federal question. 2 Justice BRENNAN, with whom WHITE joins, dissenting. 3 Appellants, half brother sister, are natural parents five children who were in custody Division Social Services Delaware Department Health at beginning this litigation.1 After determining that should be put up adoption,2 filed suit pursuant to law obtain termination appellants' parental rights over their children. Superior ordered termination, affirmed.3 Appellants appealed Court, arguing order statute authorizing it unconstitutional. We noted probable jurisdiction. 445 942, 100 1336, 63 775 (1980). 4 today dismisses question, thereby permitting remain effect despite existence substantial constitutional challenge statutory scheme under which was entered.4 Because I believe question within definition requirement our cases, dissent from dismissal. Instead, would vacate judgment below, remand reconsideration light supervening changes factual circumstances applicable state law. 5 * constitutionality certain portions former Del. Code Ann., Tit. 13, §§ 1101-1112 (1975), while litigation pending courts. These provisions established "procedure purpose adoption or, if suitable plan cannot effected, providing care child by some other may or not contemplate continued possibility eventual adoption." § 1103. Petitions could specified categories persons, including Division. 1104(8). Upon finding "not fitted continue exercise rights," 1103(4), existing "in best interests child," court required issue an transfer another person, organization, agency. 1108(a). "that all rights, duties, privileges obligations recognized between [parents] shall forever thereafter cease exist as fully intents purposes always had been strangers." 1112. Either consent before State placed adoption. 907-908. 6 argue here, they did each stage courts, invalid Constitution. Specifically, contend: (1) 1103(4) provides such where parent fitted," unconstitutionally vague indefinite; (2) higher standard than mere "preponderance evidence" terminate rights; (3) substantive due process forbids absence demonstration compelling interest, form specific findings threatened injury child.5 There no doubt appellants raised claim timely manner both Court6 Court7 Delaware, nor explicitly considered rejected challenge.8 7 Dismissal is, therefore, unwarranted. practice has dismiss taken 28 U.S.C. 1257(2) only when proper juncture state-court proceedings accordance reasonable rules. Jones v. Florida, 419 1081, 1083, 95 671, 672, 42 676 (1974) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Godchaux Co. Estopinal, 251 179, 181, 40 116, 117, 64 L.Ed. 213 (1919); R. Stern & E. Gressman, Practice 380-381 (5th ed.1978).9 See, e. g., Street New York, 394 576, 581-585, 89 1354, 1360-1362, 22 572 (1969); Safeway Stores, Inc. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Assn., 360 334, 342, n. 7, 79 1196, 1202, 1280 (1959); Raley Ohio, 423, 434-435, 1257, 1264-1265, 1344 Bailey Anderson, 326 203, 206-207, 66 66, 68, 90 (1945); Asbury Hospital Cass County, 207, 213-214, 61, 64-65, Charleston Federal Savings Loan Assn. Alderson, 324 182, 185-187, 65 624, 627-628, 857 Hunter McHugh, 320 222, 226-227, 19, 20-21, 88 (1943); Pennsylvania Illinois Brick Co., 297 447, 462-463, 56 556, 561-562, 80 796 (1936); Whitney California, 274 357, 360-361, 47 641, 642-643, 71 1095 (1927); Live Oak Water Users' Railroad Comm'n, 269 354, 357-359, 46 149, 150-151, 70 305 (1926); Rooker Fidelity Trust 261 114, 116-117, 43 288, 289, 556 (1923); Zadig Baldwin, 166 485, 488, 17 639, 640, 41 1087 (1897); Crowell Randell, 10 Pet. 368, 391-392, 398, 9 458 (1836); cf. Cardinale Louisiana, 437, 438-439, 1161, 1162-1163, 398 (1969) (dismissal writ certiorari); Beck Washington, 369 541, 549-554, 82 955, 959-962, 8 98 (1962) (same).10 If record shows brought attention "with fair precision time," then "the . regarded having adequately presented." York ex rel. Bryant Zimmerman, 278 63, 67, 49 73 184 (1928). Indeed, highest reaches decides on merits, will consider case any possible failure litigants raise compliance procedural requirements. supra, 185-186, S.Ct., 627; Louisville Nashville Higdon, 234 592, 598, 34 948, 950, 58 1484 (1914); see Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469, 476, 1029, 1036, 328 (1975). Since challenged litigation, expressly addressed issue, ruling termination-of-parental-rights procedure constitutional, Court's dismissal unprecedented inexplicable.11 II living situation changed dramatically since trial case. Doe Roe have ceased live together, thus ending incestuous relationship formed predicate original unfitness. App. Juris. Statement 5b. According attorney, now resides State, married lives her husband his Delaware. Tr. Oral Arg. 4. seen 1975.12 children, ranged age 11 months years old issued its first 1975, about old. never lived together family, four separate placements. Appellants' attorney stated oral argument goal mother" she permit father visit them. Id., 3. evidence these matters because closed December 1976. 39. Moreover, 1103 amended, effective July 11, 1980, alter rights. Instead requiring "unfitness" new "are able, failed, child's physical needs mental emotional health development" and: "a. In authorized agency: 12 "1. agency year, there history previous placement placements child, neglect, abuse, lack parent; 13 "2. conditions led still persist, appears little likelihood those remedied early date so can returned near future. 14 "b. home stepparent blood relative: 15 resided relative period least year; 16 finds noncustodial incapable exercising responsibilities, able responsibilities foreseeable future." 1103(5) (Supp.1980).13 As Bell Maryland, 378 226, 237, 84 1814, 1820, 822 (1964), "long followed uniform event raises pertaining review here. That reverse court, reconsider change law." jurisdiction power correct error but make disposition justice requires." Patterson Alabama, 294 600, 607, 55 575, 578, 1082 (1935). And, Chief Hughes further observed : "[I]n what does require, bound change, either fact law, supervened entered. recognize affect result, setting aside remanding free act." Ibid. Giles 386 80, 87 793, 800, 737 (1967) (plurality opinion); Thorpe Housing Authority, 670, 673-674, 1244, 1246, 18 (1967); Trunkline Gas Hardin 375 8, 49, 38 (1963); Wolfe North Carolina, 364 177, 195, 1482, 1492, 1650 (1960); Williams Georgia, 349 375, 389-391, 75 814, 822-824, 99 1161 (1955); Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Duel, 154, 161, 573, 577, 812 Ashcraft Tennessee, 322 143, 155-156, 921, 927, 1192 (1944); Walling James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 676-677, 826, 828-829, 1001 Whitman Wilson, 318 688, 690-691, 840, 841, 1083 Vandenbark Owens-Illinois Glass 311 538, 542, 61 347, 349, 85 327 (1941); Tax Comm'n Van Cott, 306 511, 515-516, 59 605, 83 950 (1939); Honeyman Hanan, 300 14, 25-26, 57 350, 355, 81 476 (1937); Villa Schaick, 299 152, 155, 128, 129, 91 Pagel MacLean, 283 266, 268-269, 51 416, 417-418, 1023 (1931); Missouri Wabash Public Service 273 126, 130-131, 311, 313, 575 Dorchy Kansas, 264 286, 291, 44 323, 324, 325, 68 686 (1924); Gulf, C. S. F. Dennis, 224 503, 505-507, 509, 32 543, 544, 860 (1912); also Piccirillo 400 548, 2, 520, 524, 27 596 (1971) dissenting certiorari).14 instant falls squarely principle Patterson. might well produce different result This decide law,15 how amended statute.16 U.S., 1820. Nor, however, we "ignore proceed questions To do which, [order termination], necessarily decision." Ibid.; id., 241, 1823; 131, 313; 507, 543. III 19 rather merely quibble words. irrevocably separated contend events made necessary reach questions; end leaving without means vindicate rights.17 269, 418; 544. 20 appellate discretionary. Hicks Miranda, 422 332, 344, 2281, 2289, 45 223 Having terminated, received final upholding affirming order, right review. discern basis dismissing therefore respectfully dissent. 21 STEVENS, wisdom policy avoiding premature unnecessary adjudication established. Rescue Army Municipal Los Angeles, 331 549, 568-575, 1409, 1419-1423, 1666. support otherwise inexplicable conclusion three somehow "properly presented."1 provide BRENNAN'S view remanded courts addresses issues. my opinion, proposed inadequately supported one neither unnecessary. 23 explain position, focus whether Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment requires proof preponderance evidence.2 For reasons Addington Texas, 441 418, 1804, 60 undeniably substantial. ante, 384-387, defect legitimate presented" duty reason delay character necessity deciding Unlike status justifies Constitution terminating clear convincing evidence. 24 Neither argued subsequent entry sufficient order.3 Of course, independent vacating order—or decided rely postjudgment set own decision—a proceeding determine welfare undoubtedly recent, ancient, history. believe, recent events—which unrelated jurisdiction—provide appropriate Court. 25 enactment us like 822, lawful conduct criminal conviction appeal,4 action significantly None parties none many amici curiae suggest law.5 unconstitutional apply preponderance-of-the-evidence 1972 proceeding, equally held revised statute. applying kind obligation resolve conducted. 26 1082, dissenting, 389. judgment, promptly critical case, involves family growing children6 reappear same later date. Accordingly, standard-of-proof consideration two remaining proof, depending upon resolved majority Members granted motion seal record, 949, 1595, 783 (1980), pseudonyms substituted real names. 35. apparently formal arrangements adoptive homes Del.Code 907-908 (1975) (making prerequisite parents). orally September 12, 5b, initially reversed 1108 1c. On remand, concluded children," "it terminated." 3d. affirmed. re Five Minor Children, 407 A.2d 198 (1979). substantiality appeal, "for question" [a] question," Black Payne, 438 909, 3132, 1153 (1978), Greenwald 363 721, 1599, 1521 (1960). "draw[s] validity ground being repugnant States," 1257(2). assume second third issues well. 487, 1042, (1975); Prudential Cheek, 259 530, 547, 516, 523, 1044 (1922). 2i-6i, 8i. Opening Brief (Del.Sup.Ct.) 8-36; Reply 1-21. A.2d, 199-200. Pearson Dodd, 429 396, 97 581, 50 574 (1977), Appeals West Virginia question." 582. A reading per curiam opinion reveals, styled determined appellant "no constitutionally protected property entitlement interest" base claim. distinguishable inadequacy presented, Cowgill 396 371, 372, 613, 614, 590 (1970) (Harlan, concurring); Mitchell Oregon Frozen Foods 361 231, 365, 267 (1960) (1936) (judgment vacated record), problems construction interpretation preclude addressing clean-cut concrete form," 584, 1666 (1947). statutes depend facts relevant latter grounds appropriate. Naim Naim, 350 985, 76 472, 852 (1956), contrary. earlier 891, 151, 784 (1955), Virginia, proceedings. Our explained: "The Commonwealth time marriage Carolina return bring here prevents miscegenation tendered 'in form, unclouded' problems. 584 [67 1427, 1666]." adhered decision, reflected relation after marriage. 197 Va. 734, 735, S.E.2d 849, 850 (1956). decision understood, attributable case." 151. failure. 1975 them visit. 10, 17. reflect, often attempted require must "best child" determination affected 1980 amendments. Sanks 401 144, 593, 741 (1971), Georgia "focus [the] lawsuit [had] completely blurred, altogether obliterated, important involved [had become] potentially immaterial." 598. Sanks, identical remanding, interlocutory claims, based altered remand. 148-150, 596-597. doubtful present justiciable controversy circumstances. disposition. similar Fruehauf, 365 146, (1961). itself outcome doubted. Steamship Joliffe, Wall. 450, 455-459, 805 (1865). recognized, times "inconsistent tradition deference (1964). avoid "pitfal[l]," adopted presents seek 12-14. express eligible relief Rule Rules Civil Procedure permits "relieve party justifying operation judgment." Nor mean imply custodian countervailing interest obtaining prompt resolution controversy. Until final, 907, 908 Smith Organization Foster Families, 431 816, 833-838, 2094, 2103-2106, 53 "limbo" entering permanent deleterious consequences objections entered against 384-385. brief following questions: Is statute, parent-child 'not fitted,' indefinite violation Constitution? nature decisions 323 (1979), 'preponderance evidence'? "3. Under Clause, demonstrate making harm relationship?" 2-3. agree BRENNAN's substance unfitness 388-389, merits language clearly if, matter proceeding. status. 391, 16. informed circumstances, 5a; 11-14, 29-30, warrant request parties. opening even mention changed, reply allude vaguest terms. It counsel details situation. "Petitioners' convictions affirmed Maryland January 1962. date, enacted laws abolish crime petitioners convicted." 228, 1816. addition, regard modify appellants. Bell, emphasized governing probably reversal petitioners' 230-237, 1817-1821. know effect, any, likely initiated substantially completed prior enactment. suggested bearing, litigation. Both silent respect primarily civil, nonpenal 9a-11a; 198, 200 (Del.1979). Nothing face suggests interpreted civil Thus, same. initial 1975. ranging old, time. presently foster homes, family. pendency parents, ineligible finally terminated take place consent. Further frustrate whatever hope remains ever enjoy benefits secure environment.

Category: 8