Michael H. v. Gerald D.

1989-08-30

Headline: Court upheld California’s marital-presumption law, rejecting a biological father’s bid for legal paternity and limiting his ability to obtain visitation or parental rights when a child is born into a marriage.

Holding: The Court affirmed California’s law, holding that the marital presumption of legitimacy does not violate the Constitution and that a man who fathered a child with a married woman has no guaranteed constitutional right to paternity or visitation.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for biological fathers to establish paternity when a child is born into marriage.
Limits courts’ ability to award visitation when marital presumption bars paternity.
Affirms state power to protect marital family over adulterous natural fathers.

Topics: parental rights, paternity law, marital presumption, visitation rights, child custody

Summary

Background

A man (Michael) says he fathered a child, Victoria, while the child's mother, Carole, was married to another man, Gerald. Tests showed a 98% probability Michael was the biological father. California law (Section 621) says a child born to a married woman living with her husband is presumed to be the husband's, and that presumption is rebuttable only in narrow situations. Michael sued to be declared Victoria’s father and to get visitation; the state courts applied the presumption and denied him paternity and long-term visitation. The case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court said Section 621 is not an unconstitutional taking of a liberty right. The majority treated the rule as a longstanding public policy protecting the marital family and looked to historical practice. It rejected Michael’s claim that he had a fundamental constitutional right to be declared the father or to guaranteed visitation, and it rejected the child’s equal protection claim. The Court said the presumption is a substantive rule that rationally protects family stability and so does not violate due process or equal protection.

Real world impact

The ruling lets states keep strong marital-presumption rules that can block biological fathers who conceive a child with a married woman from obtaining legal paternity or parental rights in similar circumstances. In practice, many putative fathers will be unable to force paternity hearings or long-term visitation when a mother and her husband seek to raise the child as theirs. The decision is not a blanket rule for all paternity disputes; it is limited to children born into intact marital unions where the couple wishes to raise the child together.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice (Stevens) agreed the Court could deny a claim just seeking a biological finding but assumed a father might sometimes have protectable rights and thought the trial court had discretion under state law to consider visitation. Other Justices dissented, arguing the law denied a meaningful opportunity to prove paternity and so violated the Constitution.