child custody proceedings

In June 1992, after a marriage that endured nearly eight years, M. L. B. and S. L. J. were divorced in Mississippi, and their two children—a boy born in April 1985 and a girl born in February 1987—remained in the father’s custody pursuant to their agreement at the time of the divorce. S. L. J. married J. P. J. in September 1992. In November 1993, S. L. J. and J. P. J. filed suit in the Chancery Court of Rankin County seeking to terminate M. L. B.’s parental rights and to gain court approval for adoption of the children by their stepmother, with the complaint alleging that M. L. B. had not maintained reasonable visitation and was in arrears on child support payments. M. L. B. counterclaimed for primary custody of both children, contending that S. L. J. had not permitted her reasonable visitation despite a provision in the divorce decree. After taking evidence on August 18, November 2, and December 12, 1994, the Chancellor issued a decree on December 14, 1994, that terminated all parental rights of the natural mother, approved the adoption, and ordered that J. P. J. be shown as the mother of the children on their birth certificates. The decree twice recited the governing Mississippi statute and declared that there had been a substantial erosion of the relationship between the natural mother and the minor children caused at least in part by M. L. B.’s serious neglect, abuse, prolonged and unreasonable absence or unreasonable failure to visit or communicate. The Chancellor stated without elaboration that the natural father and his second wife had met their burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, though nothing in the order described the evidence or revealed precisely why M. L. B. was decreed a stranger to her children. In January 1995, M. L. B. filed a timely appeal and paid the $100 filing fee. Several days later the Clerk of the Chancery Court estimated the costs for preparing and transmitting the record at $2,352.36, consisting of $1,900 for the transcript of 950 pages at $2 per page, $438 for other documents comprising 219 pages at $2 per page, $4.36 for binders, and $10 for mailing. Mississippi grants civil litigants a right to appeal but conditions that right on prepayment of costs. Relevant portions of a transcript must be ordered and its preparation costs advanced by the appellant if the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence. Unable to pay the estimated costs, M. L. B. sought leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court of Mississippi denied her application in August 1995, stating under its precedent that the right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil cases exists only at the trial level. M. L. B. then sought review in the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel never married but had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. Jenifer and Gary Troxel are Brad's parents and the paternal grandparents of the children. After Granville and Brad separated in 1991, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought Isabelle and Natalie to their home for weekend visitation. Brad Troxel committed suicide in May 1993. The Troxels continued to see the children on a regular basis after his death. In October 1993 Granville informed the Troxels that she wished to limit their visitation to one short visit per month. In December 1993 the Troxels filed a petition in Washington Superior Court for Skagit County under Rev. Code Wash. § 26.10.160(3) seeking visitation rights. The statute provides that any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time. The court may order visitation when it may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances. The Troxels requested two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks each summer. Granville proposed one day of visitation per month with no overnight stay. In 1995 the Superior Court ordered visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both grandparents' birthdays. Granville appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that nonparents lack standing to seek visitation under the statute unless a custody action is pending. The Washington Supreme Court granted review, held that the Troxels had standing, but affirmed on the ground that the statute unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment.

Abdiel Caban and Maria Mohammed began living together in New York City in September 1968. They continued until the end of 1973. During this time they held themselves out as husband and wife even though Caban remained married to another woman until 1974. Mohammed gave birth to two children during this period: David Andrew Caban on July 16, 1969, and Denise Caban on March 12, 1971. Caban was named as the father on both birth certificates. The couple jointly supported the children while living together as a family. In December 1973, Mohammed left Caban with the children and began residing with Kazin Mohammed, whom she married on January 30, 1974. For the following nine months, the children visited their maternal grandmother weekly, allowing Caban to see them regularly. In September 1974, the grandmother moved to Puerto Rico and took the children with her at the Mohammeds' request. Caban maintained contact through his parents in Puerto Rico. In November 1975, he traveled there to retrieve the children, returning with them to New York. Upon learning of the children's location, Maria Mohammed attempted to recover them with police assistance. The Mohammeds then initiated custody proceedings in New York Family Court. That court awarded temporary custody to the Mohammeds and granted visiting rights to Caban and his new wife, Nina. In January 1976, the Mohammeds filed a petition for adoption of the children under section 110 of the New York Domestic Relations Law. The Cabans responded with a cross-petition for adoption in March 1976. A hearing occurred before a Law Assistant to the Surrogate in Kings County, where both parties presented evidence and cross-examined witnesses. The Surrogate granted the Mohammeds' adoption petition. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the decision, relying on the Court of Appeals' ruling in In re Malpica-Orsini. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, leading to review by the United States Supreme Court.

In late spring of 1975, the District Court of Durham County, North Carolina, adjudicated William Everett Lassiter, born in 1975 to petitioner Abby Gail Lassiter, a neglected child after evidence that she had not provided proper medical care, and transferred custody to the respondent Durham County Department of Social Services. A year later, Ms. Lassiter was convicted of second-degree murder and began serving a sentence of 25 to 40 years. In 1978, the Department petitioned the court to terminate Ms. Lassiter's parental rights, alleging she had not had contact with the child since December 1975 and had willfully left the child in foster care for more than two years without substantial progress. Ms. Lassiter was served with the petition and notice of the August 31, 1978 hearing. Although her mother had retained counsel for her in connection with challenging the murder conviction, Ms. Lassiter did not mention the termination hearing to him. At the hearing, the court discussed whether she should have more time to find counsel but concluded she had ample opportunity and proceeded without appointing counsel or inquiring about indigency. A social worker testified about the child's medical issues in 1975, lack of contact since then, and that the grandmother was not able to care for the child. Ms. Lassiter cross-examined the witness, testified herself, and her mother also testified. The court found that Ms. Lassiter had not contacted the Department since December 1975, had not expressed concern for the child's welfare, and had willfully failed to maintain responsibility, and terminated her parental rights. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that appointment of counsel for indigent parents was not constitutionally mandated, and the North Carolina Supreme Court summarily denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.