1. Case: Michael H. v.
Gerald D. (US 1989)
2. Facts: A wife had
an affair & had a child by the paramour. The paramour, not the
husband, is the child's father. The paramour has lived w/the child
& its mot & wants his paternity rights. The ct. denied
the paramour parental rights.
3. Reasoning (per Scalia, J.):
a. To identify a fundamental
right, we look at the most specific level at which a relevant
tradition protecting or denying the asserted right can be
identified. (Here; at the most specific level, have we
historically protected a family relationship like the one between
the paramour & the child? The answer is no.)
b. Threats to the unitary family
unit must be struck down.
No comments:
Post a Comment