In Re M & G: A Misapplication of Stanley v. Illinois

A Vermont probate court terminated the rights of M, an unwed mother, in her illegitimate child, although G, the putative father, did not receive official notice of the termination hearing and did not appear. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents shortly after the hearing. In an effort to assert his parental rights, G joined in the mother's post-hearing petition for habeas corpus. Relying on Stanley v. Illinois, G argued that he was entitled to notification of the termination hearing and an opportunity to be heard on his fitness as a parent. In In re M&G, the Vermont Supreme Court held that G's claim was not yet ripe for determination because it had not been affected by the termination of the mother's rights. The court declared that G's parental rights would be fully protected by his opportunity to assert them at the final adoption hearing. The court's recognition of the potential infringement of G's parental rights was an implicit acceptance of the principles of Stanley v. Illinois. The application of Stanley to G's claims required an expanded reading of the Supreme Court decision. But paradoxically, the Vermont court's use of Stanley had the practical effect of impeding the very rights which Stanley sought to protect. This Note contends that the Vermont Supreme Court's decision to permit temporary placement of an illegitimate child pending final adoption without opportunity to the putative father to claim custody not only misapplied the principles of Stanley but also impaired the traditional remedy of custodial habeas corpus.