Also known as: parental rights termination · termination of parental rights · TPR · terminate parental rights · termination parental rights · involuntary termination of parental rights
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A judicial proceeding that permanently severs the legal relationship between a parent and child. The proceeding requires clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds such as neglect or abandonment. Notice must be given to a putative father who has timely registered in the state paternity registry.
Piper Patel gives birth to a child conceived with Peter Park. Peter registers with the state paternity registry forty-five days after the birth. When the adoption agency later petitions to terminate parental rights and place the child with adoptive parents, the court proceeds without notifying Peter because his registration fell outside the statutory window.
Parker Phillips and Patricia Patel face a state petition alleging neglect after their child enters foster care. The agency presents evidence that the parents failed to maintain contact for over a year. The court refuses to terminate their rights on a mere preponderance showing and instead requires the agency to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard before entering a final order.
In November 1973, after incidents reflecting parental neglect, respondent Kramer, Commissioner of the Ulster County Department of Social Services, initiated a neglect proceeding under the Family Court Act and removed Tina Santosky from her natural home. About ten months later, he removed John III and placed him with foster parents. On the day John was taken, Annie Santosky gave birth to a third child, Jed, who was transferred to a foster home three days later on the ground that immediate removal was necessary to avoid imminent danger to his life or health. In October 1978, respondent petitioned the Ulster County Family Court to terminate petitioners' parental rights in the three children. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the fair preponderance of the evidence standard specified in the Family Court Act. The Family Court Judge rejected this constitutional challenge, weighed the evidence under the statutory standard, acknowledged that the Santoskys had maintained contact with their children but found those visits at best superficial and devoid of any real emotional content, decided that the agency had made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, concluded that the Santoskys were incapable even with public assistance of planning for the future of their children, and after a dispositional hearing ruled that the best interests of the three children required permanent termination of the Santoskys' custody. Petitioners appealed, again contesting the constitutionality of the standard of proof. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, holding application of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard proper and constitutional on the ground that it recognizes and seeks to balance rights possessed by the child with those of the natural parents. The New York Court of Appeals then dismissed petitioners' appeal upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider petitioners' constitutional claim.
View casePerry Pratt, a fit parent, objects when the state seeks to terminate his rights so that his child can be adopted by a third party. The court recognizes that Perry possesses a protected liberty interest in the care and custody of his child and therefore demands strict adherence to procedural safeguards before any termination order issues.
Patrick Phan, an indigent father, appears without counsel at a termination hearing after the state removes his child for alleged abuse. The court appoints counsel because the proceeding carries the risk of permanently severing a fundamental parental interest and therefore triggers due-process protections for representation.
Patricia Patel places her newborn for adoption. The genetic father Parker Phillips never registers with the paternity registry and has had no prior relationship with the child. The adoption agency proceeds with termination without providing notice, and the court upholds the order because Parker failed to take the steps necessary to secure constitutional protection.
Piper Patel seeks to block termination of her parental rights after the state alleges chronic neglect. The court treats the threatened severance as a deprivation of a protected liberty interest and therefore requires the state to satisfy heightened procedural standards before entering any final order.
The state must prove its allegations by clear and convincing evidence. A mere preponderance standard is constitutionally insufficient because termination implicates a fundamental liberty interest.
Supporting sources
A man who wishes to be notified must register before the child's birth or no later than thirty days after birth. Registration after that deadline generally eliminates any right to notice in the termination action.
Supporting sources
Due process may require appointment of counsel when the proceeding threatens permanent loss of parental rights. The court must weigh the parent's interest, the state's interest, and the risk of error in deciding whether counsel is necessary.
Supporting sources
A registered putative father is entitled to formal service of process in the same manner used for civil defendants. Ordinary mail to an outdated address does not satisfy the requirement.