Facts
- Carole D. married Gerald D. in 1976 and lived with him in California.
- Carole began an affair with Michael H. in 1978.
- Victoria D. was conceived around 1980 and born in May 1981 while Carole was married to and living with Gerald; Gerald was listed as the father on the birth certificate and held Victoria out as his child.
- Blood tests indicated a 98.07% probability that Michael was Victoria’s biological father.
- During Victoria’s early childhood, Carole and Victoria lived at various times with Michael, with another man, and with Gerald; by June 1984, Carole and Victoria lived with Gerald.
- California Evidence Code § 621 created a conclusive presumption that a child born to a married woman cohabiting with her husband is a child of the marriage, rebuttable only by the husband or wife and only in limited circumstances.
- In 1982, Michael filed an action to establish paternity and visitation; a guardian ad litem filed a cross-complaint on Victoria’s behalf seeking recognition of a relationship with both Michael and Gerald.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Gerald under § 621 and denied visitation; the California Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting Michael’s and Victoria’s constitutional claims.
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in a 5–4 decision, with a plurality opinion by Justice Scalia.
Issues
- Whether a biological father who formed a relationship with a child born into an intact marriage has a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in establishing paternity and parental rights that prevents a state from applying a conclusive marital presumption of paternity.
- Whether procedural due process requires a hearing for a putative father to litigate paternity or visitation notwithstanding a conclusive statutory presumption.
- Whether the child has independent due process or equal protection rights to maintain a legal or visitation relationship with the biological father in addition to the marital father.
Decision
- The Court affirmed the judgment upholding summary judgment for the husband and denial of the putative father’s paternity and visitation claims.
- The Court held that applying California’s conclusive marital presumption to bar the putative father’s paternity action did not violate substantive due process.
- The Court rejected the procedural due process claim because the putative father lacked a constitutionally protected liberty interest in these circumstances.
- The Court rejected the child’s constitutional claims seeking recognition of legal parentage or visitation involving both men.
Legal Principles
- Substantive due process protects only those liberty interests recognized as fundamental; historical treatment of the asserted interest may be used to assess whether it is fundamental.
- A state may prioritize the marital family and give conclusive effect to a marital presumption of paternity for children born into an existing marriage where the husband is the presumed father.
- Procedural due process safeguards do not require a hearing to assert a claimed interest when state law does not recognize a protected liberty interest in that context.
- The Constitution does not require a state to recognize a child’s right to legal parentage or comparable legal status involving “multiple fathers” where state law structures parentage around the marital unit.
Conclusion
The Court upheld California’s conclusive marital presumption of paternity as constitutional when applied to bar an adulterous biological father’s effort to establish paternity and parental rights for a child born into an intact marriage, and it also rejected the child’s attempt to secure constitutional recognition of dual father relationships.