About: Santosky v. Kramer

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Santosky v. Kramer Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FSantosky_v._Kramer

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), is a Supreme Court case involving the burden of proof for the revocation of parental rights. The case arose when the Ulster County, New York, Department of Social Services sought to revoke John Santosky II and Annie Santosky's parental rights to their three children. Under Section 622 of the New York State Family Court Act, the state was permitted to revoke parental rights to a natural child if, after a fair preponderance of the evidence, a court found "permanent neglect." The New York State Family Court found such neglect by using the "fair preponderance" standard. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the burden of proof used.

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	Thing case Legal Case unit of work Legal case Supreme Court of the United States case
rdfs:label	Santosky v. Kramer (en)
rdfs:comment	Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), is a Supreme Court case involving the burden of proof for the revocation of parental rights. The case arose when the Ulster County, New York, Department of Social Services sought to revoke John Santosky II and Annie Santosky's parental rights to their three children. Under Section 622 of the New York State Family Court Act, the state was permitted to revoke parental rights to a natural child if, after a fair preponderance of the evidence, a court found "permanent neglect." The New York State Family Court found such neglect by using the "fair preponderance" standard. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the burden of proof used. (en)
foaf:name	(en) John Santosky, et al. v. Bernhardt S. Kramer, Commissioner, Ulster County Department of Social Services, et al. (en)
foaf:depiction
dcterms:subject	United States Supreme Court cases United States family case law 1982 in United States case law United States due process case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court History of Ulster County, New York
Wikipage page ID	49590820 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1094859616 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	California California Supreme Court Roe v. Wade Procedural due process Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins John Paul Stevens Reno v. Flores Ulster County, New York United States Supreme Court cases Mathews v. Eldridge Strict scrutiny Clear and convincing evidence Colorado Supreme Court United States family case law 1982 in United States case law United States due process case law Troxel v. Granville William Rehnquist Addington v. Texas Due process clause Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Legal burden of proof Griswold v. Connecticut Harry Blackmun United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court L. Ed. 2d Supreme Court of the United States History of Ulster County, New York Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court In re Gault In re Winship Meyer v. Nebraska New York Court of Appeals New York State New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Substantive due process Social Security (United States) Undocumented immigrant Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Parental rights Finder of fact Preponderance of the evidence dbr:United_States_v._Yazell
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/745/ https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-5889 http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep455/usrep455745/usrep455745.pdf
sameAs	Santosky v. Kramer Santosky v. Kramer Santosky v. Kramer
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Good_article dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Main dbt:Portal dbt:Reflist dbt:Ussc
thumbnail	wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Justice_Blackmun_Official.jpg?width=300
Dissent	Rehnquist (en)
docket	80 (xsd:integer)
JoinDissent	Burger, White, O'Connor (en)
JoinMajority	Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Stevens (en)
oyez	https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-5889
ParallelCitations	172800.0 (second)
Prior	17280.0 (second)
USPage	745 (xsd:integer)
USVol	455 (xsd:integer)
ArgueDate	0001-11-10 (xsd:gMonthDay)
ArgueYear	1981 (xsd:integer)
case	Santosky v. Kramer, (en)
DecideDate	0001-03-24 (xsd:gMonthDay)
DecideYear	1982 (xsd:integer)
fullname	John Santosky, et al. v. Bernhardt S. Kramer, Commissioner, Ulster County Department of Social Services, et al. (en)
Holding	New York State's standard of fair preponderance of the evidence for the revocation of parental rights violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before revoking parental rights, the State must satisfy a burden of at least clear and convincing evidence. Holding of the lower court reversed. (en)
justia	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/745/
Litigants	Santosky v. Kramer (en)
majority	Blackmun (en)
loc	http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep455/usrep455745/usrep455745.pdf
has abstract	Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), is a Supreme Court case involving the burden of proof for the revocation of parental rights. The case arose when the Ulster County, New York, Department of Social Services sought to revoke John Santosky II and Annie Santosky's parental rights to their three children. Under Section 622 of the New York State Family Court Act, the state was permitted to revoke parental rights to a natural child if, after a fair preponderance of the evidence, a court found "permanent neglect." The New York State Family Court found such neglect by using the "fair preponderance" standard. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the burden of proof used. In a 5–4 opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Appellate Division's ruling, holding that states seeking to sever parental rights irrevocably must show at least clear and convincing evidence of neglect. Justice William Rehnquist, joined by three others, dissented, on the grounds that the majority's focus on a single aspect of the law disregarded the fairness of the scheme as a whole. The ruling has since been criticized for its intrusion into state affairs. Because of the ruling, all states previously using the fair preponderance standard changed to the clear and convincing standard, but California has since abandoned the clear and convincing standard and returned to the fair preponderance standard. (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Santosky_v._Kramer?oldid=1094859616&ns=0

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 59 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software