## Facts

- Alabama officials removed a minor child (Richard Roe) from his mother (Margaret Ann Wambles) under Alabama’s child-neglect provisions after a complaint by a putative father (Cecil Coppage).
- A police officer inspected the home, found it relatively clean and adequately supplied, and observed no signs of abuse or immediate danger to the child.
- Despite the absence of immediate or threatened harm, the officer obtained a pickup order and removed the child without prior notice to the mother and without a pre-deprivation hearing.
- The first hearing occurred 38 days after removal; the family court then awarded the putative father temporary custody, and the mother’s efforts to regain custody were unsuccessful in state proceedings.
- Related probate-court procedures allowed a putative father to legitimate an “illegitimate” child and seek a surname change with limited notice and limited opportunity for the mother and child to be heard.
- The consolidated federal actions sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including class relief, challenging the constitutionality of the summary removal process, the standards governing neglect-based intervention, and the legitimation and name-change procedures, including the lack of counsel for the child.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires notice and a hearing before the state removes a child from a parent’s custody absent immediate danger, and whether a prompt post-deprivation hearing is required after emergency removal.
2. Whether Alabama’s child-neglect framework was unconstitutional for authorizing removal based on a broad “welfare” standard without adequate procedural safeguards and sufficiently definite standards.
3. Whether due process was violated by legitimation and surname-change procedures that materially affected parental and child interests without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard for the mother and child.
4. Whether due process requires appointment of counsel to represent the child’s interests in proceedings that determine custody or substantially affect the child’s legal status.

## Decision

- The three-judge district court granted declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of challenged aspects of Alabama’s child-neglect, legitimation, and name-change statutory scheme.
- The court held that, absent a narrowly defined emergency involving immediate threat of harm, the state may not remove a child from parental custody without prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
- The court held that even when emergency removal is justified, due process requires a prompt post-deprivation hearing; a 38-day delay was inconsistent with due process.
- The court ruled unconstitutional the legitimation and surname-change procedures to the extent they permitted status-altering actions without constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to be heard for the mother and child.
- The court held that the child is entitled to representation of the child’s own interests; the statutory scheme’s failure to ensure appointment of counsel for the child violated due process.

## Legal Principles

- Parents and children have a protected liberty interest in family integrity; state interference with custody requires fundamentally fair procedures.
- Due process generally requires notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before removing a child from a parent’s custody; emergency removal is limited to situations of immediate threat of harm.
- When emergency removal occurs, due process requires a prompt post-deprivation hearing sufficient to test the basis for removal and reduce erroneous deprivation.
- Procedures that change a child’s legal status or surname in ways that affect custody-related interests require adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard for affected parties, including the mother and child.
- In custody and related proceedings where a child’s interests may diverge from the parents’, due process requires appointment of counsel to represent the child’s interests.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated and enjoined key aspects of Alabama’s child-removal, legitimation, and name-change procedures because they allowed major interference with family relationships without emergency limits, timely hearings, adequate notice and participation for affected parties, and counsel for the child.


Roe v. Conn, 417 F. Supp. 769 (M.D. Ala. 1976)