## Facts

- New York’s foster care system permitted an authorized placement agency to remove a foster child from a foster home under state statutes and regulations.
- Foster parents and their organization brought a class action on behalf of foster parents and foster children who had lived together for at least one year, challenging the constitutionality of removal procedures under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Natural mothers of children in foster care intervened, asserting their interests in reunification and related proceedings.
- The challenged framework generally required advance notice of removal and provided foster parents an opportunity to contest removal through administrative processes.
- Foster parents receiving notice could request a conference with the local Department of Social Services, appear with counsel, receive the stated reasons for removal, and submit opposing reasons; a written decision was required promptly.
- After removal, foster parents could obtain a full adversary administrative hearing before the State Department of Social Services, with judicial review of the agency determination.
- Removal was not automatically stayed while administrative proceedings were pending.
- New York City additionally provided a trial-type pre-removal hearing when a child was being transferred to another foster home under a local procedure.
- State law also allowed pre-removal judicial review in certain long-term foster care situations (including specified durations in foster care).
- A three-judge federal district court held New York’s pre-removal procedures constitutionally inadequate and ordered a pre-removal hearing before an independent decisionmaker with authority to prevent removal.
- State and city officials appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether foster parents and foster children have a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in continuation of the foster family relationship.
2. Whether New York’s notice, conference, and post-removal adversary hearing procedures (with additional local and statutory protections in some cases) satisfy procedural due process before removal.
3. Whether New York’s foster care removal framework violates equal protection by treating foster families differently from natural or adoptive families.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and upheld New York’s foster-child removal scheme.
- The Court assumed without deciding that foster parents and children could assert a protected liberty interest but held that, in context, the procedures provided were constitutionally sufficient.
- The Court rejected the requirement of an automatic, trial-type pre-removal hearing in all transfer cases.
- The Court held that the statutory distinctions between foster families and natural/adoptive families did not violate equal protection.

## Legal Principles

- Family-related liberty interests traditionally receive the strongest constitutional protection when grounded in marriage, blood, or adoption; relationships created and regulated by the State may be more limited and contingent.
- Procedural due process is evaluated by balancing (1) the private interests affected, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and the likely value of added safeguards, and (3) the government’s interests and burdens.
- In the foster-care context, the State’s interests in child welfare administration and in policies favoring reunification with natural parents may justify procedures that do not require a full adversary hearing before every removal.
- Notice and an opportunity to be heard through prompt administrative mechanisms, followed by an adversary hearing and judicial review, can satisfy due process even when removal is not automatically stayed.
- Equal protection permits different treatment of foster families and natural/adoptive families when the groups are not similarly situated and the classification is rationally related to legitimate state objectives.

## Conclusion

The Court held that New York’s foster-child removal procedures, viewed against the State-created and temporary character of foster care and the State’s child-welfare and reunification interests, provided constitutionally adequate process and did not deny equal protection.


Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)