Armstrong v. Manzo

Background

A divorced father was ordered to pay support and to have reasonable visitation with his daughter, who lived with her mother. The mother remarried and, with her new husband, sought to have him legally adopt the child. Under Texas law, a judge’s written consent could substitute for a father’s consent if the father had not substantially supported the child for two years. The juvenile judge signed such consent based on an affidavit alleging the father’s nonsupport, and the adoption decree was entered without any notice to the father. He learned of the adoption only after it was final and then moved to set the decree aside for lack of notice.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether failing to notify the father of the pending adoption deprived him of his constitutional right to notice and a hearing. The Court held that taking away a parent’s legal relationship to a child is a deprivation that requires notice reasonably calculated to inform the parent and an opportunity to be heard. Because the father received no timely notice, he was unfairly forced at a later hearing to overcome an adverse decree and burdens that would not have been imposed if he had been given his constitutional rights initially. The Court concluded the post-decree hearing did not cure the original denial of notice and therefore reversed.

Real world impact

The decision requires courts to provide parents timely notice and a meaningful chance to defend their parental relationship before an adoption can permanently terminate the legal ties. If notice is not given, later hearings will not automatically validate the adoption; courts must grant relief and reconsider the case as if proper notice had been given.