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 Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed and 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.

Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Harry Blackmun held that natural parents have a right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the burden of proof used by New York State is not stringent enough to satisfy the constitutional requirements of the due process clause. In striking down New York's burden, the Court utilized the Mathews test to determine what burden of proof was due.^[10]

The Mathews test employed consists of three considerations: the private interests affected, the risk posed by erroneous judgement, and the government interest affected. The Court found that private interests were substantially affected by the law noting that "[w]hen the State initiates a parental rights termination proceeding, it seeks not merely to infringe that fundamental liberty interest, but to end it" and that such a termination was irreversible.^[11] In analyzing the second factor, the Court stated that the interests of the parents and the child in their natural relationship are not distinct and thus the balancing factors are between the parents and the State. The Court then found that the "fair preponderance" burden did not fairly allocate risk and that a higher burden would be practically and symbolically important. The Court found that while the State had an interest, a higher burden would have little impact on the ability for the State to achieve its goal.^[12] Following from this review, the Court held that "the State [must] support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence."^[10][13]

By the early 1990s, all states previously using the "fair preponderance" standard had adapted to using the "clear and convincing" standard in termination proceedings.^[15] New York, among other states, did not apply the elevated burden of proof to the fact-finding phase of the proceedings, but rather only to the termination proceedings. The Colorado Supreme Court, conducting its own Mathews test, found that such a burden need not be applied to the fact-finding portion of the case.^[1][16] In the 1990s, California, a state that had previously used the clear and convincing standard, lowered its burden in termination proceedings. The constitutionality of this scheme was challenged and brought before the California Supreme Court in 1993. The court specifically rejected Santosky, citing substantial differences between California's procedures and New York's in Santosky, and upheld the constitutionality of the statute.^[15][17]

Seven years after the Santosky decision, the United States Supreme Court held in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that Santosky's higher burden of proof is an exception to the "conventional rules of civil litigation [...] that parties to civil litigation need only prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence."^[18] The Court later extended Santosky's finding of governmental interest in "preserving and promoting the welfare of the child" when it held in Reno v. Flores that children with no available guardians may be held in custody pending deportation hearings.^[19][20] In 2000, the right of parents to choose how to raise their child, one of the main constitutional interests at issue in Santosky, was affirmed in Troxel v. Granville when the Court struck down a Washington law that allowed for third parties to petition for visitation rights over parental objections.^[21] In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens rebutted the assumption of Santosky that interests of the parent and the interests of the child do not diverge, arguing that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment leaves room for States to consider the impact on a child of possibly arbitrary parental decisions that neither serve nor are motivated by the best interests of the child."^[22]

The Court made clear that the interests of children should be assumed to be covered as part of the interests of the parent, not treated as separate, but this doctrine has been less clear in practice as termination proceedings still focus on the fitness of the parent.^[23] This has resulted in further constitutional protections for parents and increasingly formal termination proceedings that limit the contribution of the child's interests in the proceedings.^[23] Santosky has also contributed to the role of parental rights of undocumented immigrants as the constitutionally protected parental rights may apply to non-citizens as well as United States citizens.^[24]

The ruling has been criticized for its intrusion into state affairs and its basis in previous rulings. Prior to Santosky, the realm of family life had been left to the states. Because of this, Santosky's direct intervention into the affairs of state interests was seen as contrary to United States v. Yazell, which held that federal courts should only overturn state statutes when those statutes cannot adequately serve a clear and substantial federal interest.^[1][25]

• Addington v. Texas
• In re Winship