Court Opinion

ID: 9427552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:08.710236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.811067
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stevens,
with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Rehnquist join, dissenting.
Under § 111 (l)(c) of the New York Domestic Relations Law (McKinney 1977), the adoption of a child born out of wedlock usually requires the consent of the natural mother; it does not require that of the natural father unless he has “lawful custody.” See ante, at 386 n. 4. Appellant, the natural but noncustodial father of two school-age children born out of wedlock,1 challenges that provision insofar as it allows the adoption of his natural children by the husband of the natural mother without his consent. Appellant’s primary objection is that this unconsented-to termination of his parental rights without proof of unfitness on his part violates the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Secondarily, he attacks § 111 (l)(c)’sdis-*402parate treatment of natural mothers and natural fathers as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the same Amendment. In view of the Court’s disposition, I shall discuss the equal protection question before commenting on appellant’s primary contention. I shall then indicate why I think the holding of the Court, although erroneous, is of limited effect.
I
This case concerns the validity of rules affecting the status of the thousands of children who are born out of wedlock every day.2 All of these children have an interest in acquiring the status of legitimacy; a great many of them have an interest in being adopted by parents who can give them opportunities that would otherwise be denied; for some the basic necessities of life are at stake. The state interest in facilitating adoption in appropriate cases is strong — perhaps even “compelling.” 3
*403Nevertheless, it is also true that § 111 (l)(c) gives rights to natural mothers that it withholds from natural fathers. Because it draws this gender-based4 distinction between two classes of citizens who have an equal right to fair and impartial treatment by their government, it is necessary to determine whether there are differences between the members of the two classes that provide a justification for treating them differently.5 That determination requires more than merely recognizing that society has traditionally treated the two classes differently.6 But it also requires analysis that goes beyond a merely reflexive rejection of gender-based distinctions.
*404Men and women are different, and the difference is relevant to the question whether the mother may be given the exclusive right to consent to the adoption of a child born out of wedlock. Because most adoptions involve newborn infants or very young children,7 it is appropriate at the outset to focus on the significance of the difference in such cases.
Both parents are equally responsible for the conception of the child out of wedlock.8 But from that point on through pregnancy and infancy, the differences between the male and the female have an important impact on the child’s destiny. Only the mother carries the child; it is she who has the constitutional right to decide whether to bear it or not.9 In many *405eases, only the mother knows who sired the child, and it will often be within her power to withhold that fact, and even the fact of her pregnancy, from that person. If during pregnancy the mother should marry a different partner, the child will be legitimate when born, and the natural father may never even know that his “rights” have been affected. On the other hand, only if the natural mother agrees to marry the natural father during that period can the latter’s actions have a positive impact on the status of the child; if he instead should marry a different partner during that time, the only effect on the child is negative, for the likelihood of legitimacy will be lessened.
These differences continue at birth and immediately thereafter. During that period, the mother and child are together;10 the mother’s identity is known with certainty. The father, on the other hand, may or may not be present; his identity may be unknown to the world and may even be uncertain to the mother.11 These natural differences between unmarried fathers and mothers make it probable that the mother, and not the father or both parents, will have custody of the newborn infant.12
*406In short, it is virtually inevitable that from conception through infancy the mother will constantly be faced with decisions about how best to care for the child, whereas it is much less certain that the father will be confronted with comparable problems. There no doubt are cases in which the relationship of the parties at birth makes it appropriate for the State to give the father a voice of some sort in the adoption decision.13 But as a matter of equal protection analysis, *407it is perfectly obvious that at the time and immediately after a child is born out of wedlock, differences between men and women justify some differential treatment of the mother and father in the adoption process.
Most particularly, these differences justify a rule that gives the mother of the newborn infant the exclusive right to consent to its adoption. Such a rule gives the mother, in whose sole charge the infant is often placed anyway, the maximum flexibility in deciding how best to care for the child. It also gives the loving father an incentive to marry the mother,14 and has no adverse impact on the disinterested father. Finally, it facilitates the interests of the adoptive parents, the child, and the public at large by streamlining the often traumatic adoption process and allowing the prompt, complete, and reliable integration of the child into a satisfac*408tory new home at as young an age as is feasible.15 Put most simply, it permits the maximum participation of interested natural parents without so burdening the adoption process that its attractiveness to potential adoptive parents is destroyed.
This conclusion is borne out by considering the alternative rule proposed by appellant. If the State were to require the consent of both parents, or some kind of hearing to explain why either’s consent is unnecessary or unobtainable,16 it would unquestionably complicate and delay the adoption process. Most importantly, such a rule would remove the mother’s freedom of choice in her own and the child’s behalf without also relieving her of the unshakable responsibility for the care of the child. Furthermore, questions relating to the adequacy of notice to absent fathers could invade the mother’s privacy,17 cause the adopting parents to doubt the reliability *409of the new relationship, and add to the expense and time required to conclude what is now usually a simple and certain process.18 While it might not be irrational for a State to conclude that these costs should be incurred to protect the interest of natural fathers, it is nevertheless plain that those costs, which are largely the result of differences between the mother and the father, establish an imposing justification for some differential treatment of the two sexes in this type of situation.
With this much the Court does not disagree; it confines its holding to cases such as the one at hand involving the adoption of an older child against the wishes of a natural father who previously has participated in the rearing of the child and who admits paternity. Ante, at 392-393. The Court does conclude, however, that the gender basis for the classification drawn by § 111 (1) (c) makes differential treatment so suspect that the State has the burden of showing not only that the rule is generally justified but also that the justification holds equally true for all persons disadvantaged by the rule. In its view, since the justification is not as strong for some indeterminately small part of the disadvantaged class as it is for the class as a whole, see ante, at 393, the rule is invalid under the Equal Protection Clause insofar as it applies to that subclass. With this conclusion I disagree.
If we assume, as we surely must, that characteristics possessed by all members of one class and by no members of the other class justify some disparate treatment of mothers and fathers of children born out of wedlock, the mere fact that the statute draws a “gender-based distinction,” see ante, at 389, *410should not, in my opinion, give rise to any presumption that the impartiality principle embodied in the Equal Protection Clause has been violated.19 Indeed, if we make the further undisputed assumption that the discrimination is justified in those cases in which the rule has its most frequent application — cases involving newborn infants and very young children in the custody of their natural mothers, see nn. 7 and 12, supra — we should presume that the law is entirely valid and require the challenger to demonstrate that its unjust applications are sufficiently numerous and serious to render it invalid.
In this case, appellant made no such showing; his demonstration of unfairness, assuming he has made one, extends only to himself and by implication to the unknown number of fathers just like him. Further, while appellant did nothing to inform the New York courts about the size of his subclass and the overall degree of its disadvantage under § 111 (l)(c), the New York Court of Appeals has previously concluded that the subclass is small and its disadvantage insignificant by comparison to the benefits of the rule as it now stands.20
*411The mere fact that an otherwise valid general classification appears arbitrary in an isolated case is not a sufficient reason *412for invalidating the entire rule.21 Nor, indeed, is it a sufficient reason for concluding that the application of a valid rule in a hard case constitutes a violation of equal protection principles.22 We cannot test the conformance of rules to the principle of equality simply by reference to exceptional cases.
Moreover, I am not at all sure that § 111 (1) (c) is arbitrary even if viewed solely in the light of the exceptional circumstances presently before the Court. This case involves a dispute between natural parents over which of the two may adopt the children. If both are given a veto, as the Court requires, neither may adopt and the children will remain illegitimate. If, instead of a gender-based distinction, the veto were given to the parent having custody of the child, the mother would prevail just as she did in the state court.23 *413Whether or not it is wise to devise a special rule to protect the natural father who (a) has a substantial relationship with his child, and (b) wants to veto an adoption that a court has found to be in the best interests of the child, the record in this case does not demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause requires such a rule.
I have no way of knowing how often disputes between natural parents over adoption of their children arise after the father “has established a substantial relationship with the child and [is willing to admit] his paternity,” ante, at 393, but has previously been unwilling to take steps to legitimate his relationship. I am inclined to believe that such cases are relatively rare. But whether or not this assumption is valid, the far surer assumption is that in the more common adoption situations, the mother will be the more, and often the only, responsible parent, and that a paternal consent requirement will constitute a hindrance to the adoption process. Because this general rule is amply justified in its normal application, I would therefore require the party challenging its constitutionality to make some demonstration of unfairness in a significant number of situations before concluding that it violates *414the Equal Protection Clause. That the Court has found a violation without requiring such a showing can only be attributed to its own “stereotyped reaction” to what is unquestionably, but in this case justifiably, a gender-based distinction.
II
Although the substantive due process issue is more troublesome,24 I can briefly state the reason why I reject it.
I assume that, if and when one develops,25 the relationship between a father and his natural child is entitled to protection against arbitrary state action as a matter of due process. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651.26 Although the Court has not decided whether the Due Process Clause provides any greater substantive protection for this relationship than simply against official caprice,27 it has indicated that an adoption decree that terminates the relationship is constitutionally justified by a finding that the father has abandoned or mistreated the child. See id., at 652. In my view, such a decree may also be justified by a finding that the adoption will serve *415the best interests of the child, at least in a situation such as this in which the natural family unit has already been destroyed, the father has previously taken no steps to legitimate the child, and a further requirement such as a showing of unfitness would entirely deprive the child — and the State— of the benefits of adoption and legitimation.28 As a matter of legislative policy, it can be argued that the latter reason standing alone is insufficient to sever the bonds that have developed between father and child. But that reason surely avoids the conclusion that the order is arbitrary, and is also sufficient to overcome any further protection of those bonds that may exist in the recesses of the Due Process Clause. Although the constitutional principle at least requires a legitimate and relevant reason and, in these circumstances, perhaps even a substantial reason, it does not require the reason to be one that a judge would accept if he were a legislator.
Ill
There is often the risk that the arguments one advances in dissent may give rise to a broader reading of the Court’s opinion than is appropriate. That risk is especially grave when the Court is embarking on a new course that threatens to interfere with social arrangements that have come into use over long periods of time. Because I consider the course on which the Court is currently embarked to be potentially most serious, I shall explain why I regard its holding in this case as quite narrow.
The adoption decrees that have been entered without the consent of the natural father must number in the millions. An untold number of family and financial decisions have been made in reliance on the validity of those decrees. Because *416the Court has crossed a new constitutional frontier with today’s decision, those reliance interests unquestionably foreclose retroactive application of this ruling. See Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 106-107. Families that include adopted children need have no concern about the probable impact of this case on their familial security.
Nor is there any reason why the decision should affect the processing of most future adoptions. The fact that an unusual application of a state statute has been held unconstitutional on equal protection grounds does not necessarily eliminate the entire statute as a basis for future legitimate state action. The procedure to be followed in cases involving infants who are in the custody of their mothers — whether solely or jointly with the father — or of agencies with authority to consent to adoption, is entirely unaffected by the Court’s holding or by its reasoning. In fact, as I read the Court’s opinion, the statutes now in effect may be enforced as usual unless “the adoption of an older child is sought,” ante, at 392, and “the father has established a substantial relationship with the child and [is willing to admit] his paternity.” Ante, at 393. State legislatures will no doubt promptly revise their adoption laws to comply with the rule of this case, but as long as state courts are prepared to construe their existing statutes to contain a requirement of paternal consent “in cases such as this,” ibid., I see no reason why they may not continue to enter valid adoption decrees in the countless routine cases that will arise before the statutes can be amended.29
In short, this is an exceptional case that should have no effect on the typical adoption proceeding. Indeed, I suspect *417that it will affect only a tiny fraction of the cases covered by the statutes that must now be rewritten. Accordingly, although my disagreement with the Court is as profound as that fraction is small, I am confident that the wisdom of judges will forestall any widespread harm.
I respectfully dissent.

 The children are presently 8 and 9 years old. At the time of the hearing before the Surrogate Court, they were 5 and 6.

 Illegitimate births accounted for an estimated 14.7% and 15.5% of all births in the United States during the years 1976 and 1977, respectively. See U. S. Dept, of HEW, National Center for Health Statistics, 27 Vital Statistics Report, No. 11, p. 19 (1979); 26 Vital Statistics Report, No. 12, p. 17 (1978). In total births, this represents 468,100 and 516,700 illegitimate births, respectively. Although statistics for New York State are not available, the problem of illegitimacy appears to be especially severe in urban areas. For example, in 1975, over 50% of all births in the District of Columbia were out of wedlock. U. S. Dept, of HEW, National Center for Health Statistics, 1 Vital Statistics of the United States, 1975 (Na-tality), 50 (1978).
Adoption is an important solution to the problem of illegitimacy. Thus, about 70% of the adoptions in the 34 States reporting to HEW in 1975 were of children born out of wedlock. The figure for New York State was 78%. U. S. Dept, of HEW, National Center for Social Statistics, Adoptions in 1975, p. 11 (1977) (hereinafter Adoptions in 1975).

 The reason I say “perhaps” is that the word “compelling” can be understood in different ways. If it describes an interest that “compels” a conclusion that any statute intended to foster that interest is automatically constitutional, few if any interests would fit that description. On the other hand, if it merely describes an interest that compels a court, *403before holding a law unconstitutional, to give thoughtful attention to a legislative judgment that the law will serve that interest, then the State’s interest in facilitating adoption in appropriate cases is unquestionably compelling. See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S. 816, 844, and n. 51; id., at 861-862 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 175; Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 652; In re Malpica-Orsini, 36 N. Y. 2d 568, 571-574, 331 N. E. 2d 486, 488-491 (1975).

 Although not all men are included in the disadvantaged class, since under § 111 (1) (b) married fathers are given consent rights, it is nonetheless true that but for their gender the members of that class would not be disadvantaged. Hence, it is not possible to avoid the conclusion that the classification here is one based on gender. See Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 711.

 Section 111 treats illegitimate children somewhat differently from legitimate ones insofar as the former, but not the latter, may be removed from one or both of their natural parents and placed in an adoptive home without the consent of both parents. Nonetheless, appellant has not challenged the statute on this basis either on his or his children’s behalf, and the difficult questions that might be raised by such a challenge, compare Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S. 259, with Trimble v. Cordon, 430 U. S. 762, are not now before us.

 “For a traditional classification is more likely to be used without pausing to consider its justification than is a newly created classification. Habit, rather than analysis, makes it seem acceptable and natural to distinguish between male and female, alien and citizen, legitimate and illegitimate; for too much of our history there was the same inertia in distinguishing between black and white. But that sort of stereotyped reaction *404may have no rational relationship — other than pure prejudicial discrimination — to the stated purpose for which the classification is being made.” Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 520-521 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

 The relevant statistics for New York are not complete. The most comprehensive ones that we have found are for the years 1974 and 1975. Even for those years, however, we could find none that include a breakdown by age of the adoptive children where one of the adoptive parents is in some way related to the child. (New York adoptions by related parents — including ones by relatives other than a natural parent and stepparent — accounted for just over half of all adoptions in 1974 and just under half in 1975.) Nonetheless, of the children adopted by unrelated parents in New York in 1974 and 1975, respectively, 66% and 62% were under 1 year old, and 90% and 88% were under 6 years old. In 1974, moreover, the median age of the child at the time of adoption was 5 months; no similar figure is available for 1975. New York’s figures appear to be fairly close to those obtaining nationally. U. S. Dept, of HEW, National Center for Statistics, Adoptions in 1974, pp. 15-16 (1976); Adoptions in 1975, p. 15.

 Of course, this is not true in every individual case, or perhaps in most cases. Nevertheless, for purposes of equal protection analysis, it probably should be assumed that in the class of cases in which the parties are not equally responsible, the woman has been the aggressor about as often as the man. If this assumption is doubted on the ground that the adverse consequences of conception out of wedlock typically make the woman more cautious because those consequences axe more serious for her, that doubt merely reinforces the basic analysis set forth in the text.

 See Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 67-75.

 In fact, there is some sociological and anthropological research indicating that by virtue of the symbiotic relationship between mother and child during pregnancy and the initial contact between mother and child directly after birth a physical and psychological bond immediately develops between the two that is not then present between the infant and the father or any other person. E. g., 1 & 2 J. Bowlby, Attachment and Loss (1969, 1973); M. Mahler, The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant (1975).

 The Court has frequently noted the difficulty of proving paternity in cases involving illegitimate children. E. g., Trimble v. Gordon, supra, at 770-771; Gomez v. Perez, 409 U. S. 535, 538. Indeed, these proof problems have been relied upon to justify differential treatment not only of unwed mothers and fathers but also of legitimate and illegitimate children. Parham v. Hughes, ante, at 357-358 (plurality opinion); Lalli v. Lalli, supra, at 268-269 (plurality opinion).

 Although statistics are hard to find in this area, those I have found bear out the proposition that is developed in text as a logical matter. Thus, in “relinquishment adoptions” in California in 1975, natural moth*406ers signed the “relinquishment” documents — papers that release custody of the child to an adoption agency and that must be signed by the parent (s) with custody, or by a judge in cases involving neglect or abandonment by the parent(s) who previously had custody — in 69% of the cases, while natural fathers did so in only 36% of the cases. On the other hand, fathers took no part in over 28% of the relinquishment adoptions, apparently because they never had custody, while the comparable figure for mothers was 3.5%. California Health and Welfare Agency, Characteristics of Relinquishment Adoptions in California, 1970-1975, Tables 11 and 12 (1978).

 Cf. Part II, infra. Indeed, New York does give unwed fathers ample opportunity to participate in adoption proceedings. In this case, for example, appellant appeared at the adoption hearing with counsel, presented testimony, and was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses offered by appellees. See N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 111-a (McKinney 1977 and Supp. 1978-1979); App. 27; ante, at 383. As a substantive matter, the natural father is free to demonstrate, as appellant unsuccessfully tried to do in this case, that the best interests of the child favor the preservation of existing parental rights and forestall cutting off those rights by way of adoption. Had appellant been able to make that demonstration, the result would have been the same as that mandated by the Court’s insistence upon paternal as well as maternal consent in these circumstances: neither parent could adopt the child into a new family with a stepparent; both would have parental rights (e. g., visitation); and custody would be determined by the child’s best interests.
In this case, although the New York courts made no finding of unfitness on appellant’s part, there was ample evidence in the record from which they could draw the conclusion that his relationship with the children had been somewhat intermittent, that it fell far short of the relationship existing between the mother and the children (whether measured by the amount of time spent with the children, the responsibility taken *407for their care and education, or the amount of resources expended on them), and that judging from appellant’s treatment of his first wife and his children by that marriage, there was a real possibility that he could not be counted on for the continued support of the two children and might well be a source of friction between them, the mother, and her new husband. E, g., App. 22, 25; Tr. 4r-7, 12-20, 36, 50, 70 (Mar. 19, 1976); Tr. 130-135, 156-157, 162-163 (Apr. 30, 1976).
That conclusion, coupled with the Surrogate’s finding that the mother’s marriage to the adoptive father was “solid and permanent” and that the children were “well eared for and healthy” in the new family, App. 30, surely justifies the Surrogate’s ultimate conclusion that the legitimacy and stability to be gained by the children from the adoption far outweighed their loss (and even appellant’s) due to the termination of appellant’s parental rights. See id., at 28:
“Whatever the motive for [appellant’s] opposition to the adoption, the consequences are the same — harassment of the natural mother in her new relationship and embarrassment to [the children] who though living with and being supported in the new family may not in school and elsewhere bear the family name.”

 Marrying the mother would not only legitimate the child but would also assure the father the right to consent to any adoption. See N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 111 (1) (b) (McKinney 1977).

 These are not idle interests. A survey of adoptive parents registered on the New York State Adoption Exchange as of January 1975 showed that over 75% preferred to adopt children under 3 years old; over half preferred children under 1 year old. New York Department of Social Services, Adoption in New York State 20 (Program Analysis Report No. 59, July 1975). Moreover, adoption proceedings, even when judicial in nature, have traditionally been expeditious in order to accommodate the needs of all concerned. Thus, 61% of all Family Court adoption proceedings in New York during the fiscal year 1972-1973 were disposed of within 90 days. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Judicial Conference to the Governor of the State of New York and the Legislature 352 (Legislative Doc. No. 90, 1974).

 Although the Court is careful to leave the States free to develop alternative approaches, it nonetheless endorses the procedure described in text for adoptions of older children against the wishes of natural fathers who have established substantial relationships with the children. Ante, at 392-393, and 393 n. 13.

 To be effective, any such notice would probably have to name the mother and perhaps even identify her further, for example, by address. Moreover, the terms and placement of the notice in, for example, a newspaper, no matter how discreet and tastefully chosen, would inevitably be taken by the public as an announcement of illegitimate maternity. To avoid the embarrassment of such announcements, the mother might well *409be forced to identify the father (or potential fathers) — despite her desire to keep that fact a secret.

 In the opinion upon which it relied in dismissing the appeal in this case, the New York Court of Appeals concluded that the “trauma” that would be added to the adoption process by a paternal consent rule is “unpleasant to envision.” In re Malpica-Orsini, 36 N. Y. 2d, at 574, 331 N. E. 2d, at 490. See n. 20, infra.

 E. g., Califano v. Webster, 430 U. S. 313; Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U. S. 498.

 “To require the consent of fathers of children born out of wedlock . . . or even some of them, would have the overall effect of denying homes to the homeless and of depriving innocent children of the other blessings of adoption. The cruel and undeserved out-of-wedlock stigma would continue its visitations. At the very least, the worthy process of adoption would be severely impeded.
“Great difficulty and expense would be encountered, in many instances, in locating the putative father to ascertain his willingness to consent. Frequently, he is unlocatable or even unknown. Paternity is denied more often than admitted. Some birth certificates set forth the names of the reputed fathers, others do not.
“Couples considering adoptions will be dissuaded out of fear of subsequent annoyance and entanglements. A 1961 study in Florida of 500 independent adoptions showed that 16% of the couples who had direct contact with the natural parents reported subsequent harassment, compared with only 2% of couples who had no contact (Isaac, Adopting a Child Today, pp 38, 116). The burden on charitable agencies will be *411oppressive. In independent placements, the baby is usually placed in his adoptive home at four or five days of age, while the majority of agencies do not place children for several months after birth (p 88). Early private placements are made for a variety of reasons, such as a desire to decrease the trauma of separation and an attempt to conceal the out-of-wedlock birth. It is unlikely that the consent of the natural father could be obtained at such an early time after birth, and married couples, if well advised, would not accept a child, if the father’s consent was a legal requisite and not then available. Institutions such as foundling homes which nurture the children for months could not afford to continue their maintenance, in itself not the most desirable, if fathers’ consents are unobtainable and the wards therefore unplaceable. These philanthropic agencies would be reluctant to take infants for no one wants to bargain for trouble in an already tense situation. The drain on the public treasury would also be immeasurably greater in regard to infants placed in foster homes and institutions by public agencies.
“Some of the ugliest disclosures of our time involve black marketing of children for adoption. One need not be a clairvoyant to predict that the grant to unwed fathers of the right to veto adoptions will provide a very fertile field for extortion. The vast majority of instances where paternity has been established arise out of filiation proceedings, compulsory in nature, and persons experienced in the field indicate that these legal steps are instigated for the most part by public authorities, anxious to protect the public purse (see Schaschlo v. Taishoff, 2 N. Y. 2d 408, 411). While it may appear, at first blush, that a father might wish to free himself of the burden of support, there will be many who will interpret it as a chance for revenge or an opportunity to recoup their 'losses.’
“Marriages would be discouraged because of the reluctance of prospective husbands to involve themselves in a family situation where they might only be a foster parent and could not adopt the mother’s offspring.
“We should be mindful of the jeopardy to which existing adoptions would be subjected and the resulting chaos by an unadulterated declaration of unconstitutionality. Even if there be a holding of nonretroactivity, the welfare of children, placed in homes months ago, or longer, and awaiting the institution or completion of legal proceedings, would be seriously affected. The attendant trauma is unpleasant to envision.” In re Malpica-Orsini, supra, at 572-574, 331 N. E. 2d, at 488-490.
To the limited extent that the Court takes cognizance of these findings and conclusions, it does not dispute them. Ante, at 392, and 392-393, *412n. 13. Instead, the Court merely states that many of these findings do not reflect appellant’s situation and “need not” reflect the situation of any natural father who is seeking to prevent the adoption of his older children. Ante, at 392.
Although I agree that the findings of the New York Court of Appeals are more likely to be true of the strong majority of adoptions that involve infants than they are in the present situation (a conclusion that should be sufficient to justify the classification drawn by § 111 (1) (c) in all situations), I am compelled to point out that the Court marshals not one bit of evidence to bolster its empirical judgment that most natural fathers facing the adoption of their older children will have appellant’s relatively exemplary record with respect to admitting paternity and establishing a relationship with his children. In my mind, it is far more likely that what is true at infancy will be true thereafter — the mother will probably retain custody as well as the primary responsibility for the care and upbringing of the child.

 Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 108; Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47, 56-58; Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 485.

 Even if the exclusive-consent requirement were limited to newborn infants, there would still be an occasional case in which the interests of the child would be better served by a responsible paternal veto than by an irresponsible maternal veto.

 In fact, although the Court understands it differently, the New York statute apparently does turn consent rights on custody. Thus, § 111 (1) (d) (McKinney 1977) gives consent rights to “any person . . . having *413lawful custody of the adoptive child.” The New York courts have not had occasion to interpret this section in a situation in which a custodial father is seeking consent rights adverse to the wishes of the mother. Nonetheless, those courts have interpreted “legal custody” in a flexible and practical manner dependent on who actually is acting as the guardian of the child, e. g., In re Erhardt, 27 App. Div. 2d 836, 277 N. Y. S. 2d 734 (1967). Moreover, the Uniform Adoption Act, after which the New York statute appears to be patterned, has a similar section that its drafters intended to benefit “a father having custody of his illegitimate minor child.” Uniform Adoption Act, §6 (a) (3), Commissioners’ Note, 9 U. L. A. 17 (1973). In this light, the allegedly improper impact of the gender-based classification in §111 (1)(c) as challenged by appellant is even more attenuated than I have suggested because it only disqualifies those few natural fathers of older children who have established a substantial relationship with the child and have admitted paternity, but who nonetheless do not have custody of the children.

 Insofar as the New York statute allows natural fathers with actual custody of their illegitimate children to consent to the adoption of those children, see n. 23, supra, this issue is far less troublesome. Cf. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645.

 Cf. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246. See also Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U. S., at 844.

 See also id., at 842-847; Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399-401.

 Although some Members of the Court have concluded that greater protection is due the “private realm of family life,” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (emphasis added), e. g., Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 (plurality opinion), this appeal does not fall within that realm because whatever family life once surrounded appellant, his children, and appellee Maria Mohammed has long since dissolved through no fault of the State's. In fact, it is the State, rather than appellant, that may rely in this case on the importance of the family insofar as it is the State that is attempting to foster the establishment and privacy of new and legitimate adoptive families.

 See Parham v. Hughes, ante, at 353. Cf. Quilloin v. Walcott, supra, at 255, quoting Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, supra, at 862-863 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment).

 Cf. Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, 377 U. S. 713, 739; Roman v. Sincock, 377 U. S. 695, 711-712; WMCA, Inc. v. Lorenzo, 377 U. S. 633, 655; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 585 (valid elections may go forward pursuant to statutes that have been held unconstitutional as violating the one-person, one-vote rule, when an impending election is imminent and the election machinery is already in progress).