## Facts

- A child (Jessica M.) was born out of wedlock to Lorraine Robertson and Jonathan Lehr.
- Lorraine later married Richard Robertson, who sought to adopt Jessica when she was over two years old.
- The Robertsons filed an adoption petition in Ulster County Family Court, and the court entered an adoption order without providing Lehr notice.
- Before the adoption (and without knowledge of it), Lehr filed a paternity petition (seeking visitation) in Westchester County Family Court.
- Lehr had not supported the child, offered to marry the mother, or otherwise established a significant relationship with the child before the adoption.
- Lehr did not file with New York’s putative father registry and did not fall within statutory categories requiring notice to a putative father.
- After learning of the adoption, Lehr sought to vacate the adoption order, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
- New York courts rejected Lehr’s challenge, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires notice of an adoption proceeding to an unwed biological father when he has not established a substantial relationship with the child and did not use the state’s putative father registry.
2. Whether New York’s classifications governing which unwed fathers receive notice and consent rights in adoption proceedings violate equal protection.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed (6–3).
- Due process was not violated because Lehr’s biological connection, without a developed parental relationship or affirmative steps to assume parental responsibility, did not entitle him to notice under these circumstances.
- Equal protection was not violated because the statutory distinctions among categories of fathers (and between mothers and certain fathers) were sufficiently related to legitimate state interests in adoption administration and child welfare.

## Legal Principles

- A biological link alone does not automatically confer full constitutional protection on an unwed father in adoption proceedings.
- When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to parenthood by coming forward to participate in the child’s upbringing, his interest in maintaining contact with the child receives substantial due process protection.
- A state may condition an unwed father’s right to notice of an adoption on reasonable affirmative measures (such as registration) that provide a meaningful opportunity to protect his interest.
- In this setting, due process focuses on whether the state provided an adequate opportunity to develop and protect a parental relationship, not on guaranteeing notice to every biological father regardless of conduct.
- Equal protection permits states to treat different categories of parents differently when the classifications are tied to legitimate interests such as the child’s best interests, finality and stability of adoptions, and administrative workability.

## Conclusion

The Court held that New York could deny an unwed biological father notice of adoption proceedings when he had not formed a substantial parent-child relationship and did not take the minimal statutory step of registering to secure notice, and that the resulting statutory distinctions did not violate due process or equal protection.


Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)