Michael H. v. Gerald D. case brief summary
491 U.S. 110 (1989)
CASE FACTS
Mother and respondent were married. Mother had an adulterous relationship with petitioner father. As a result petitioner child was born. Respondent was listed as father on child's birth certificate and held child out to the world as his daughter. Blood tests showed a 98.07 percent probability that petitioner was child's father. For a time, mother resided with petitioner, who held child out as his daughter. Mother subsequently moved and rebuffed father's attempts to visit child. Petitioner filed a filiation action to establish his paternity and right to visitation. Child filed a cross-complaint asserting that if she had more than one de facto father, she was entitled to maintain her filial relationship with both. Mother and respondent reconciled.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Respondent intervened, and the superior court granted his motion for summary judgment against petitioner and child. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. The Supreme Court affirmed.
CONCLUSION
Summary judgment affirmed; petitioner father did not have a liberty interest traditionally protected by society that would give rise to substantive due process rights, and petitioner child's due process claim failed for the same reason; in addition, petitioner child's equal protection challenge did not survive rational relationship scrutiny.
491 U.S. 110 (1989)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners appealed from an order of
the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District,
granting summary judgment in favor of respondent in petitioner
father's filiation action and petitioner child's cross-complaint
seeking to maintain her filial relationship with respondent and
petitioner father.CASE FACTS
Mother and respondent were married. Mother had an adulterous relationship with petitioner father. As a result petitioner child was born. Respondent was listed as father on child's birth certificate and held child out to the world as his daughter. Blood tests showed a 98.07 percent probability that petitioner was child's father. For a time, mother resided with petitioner, who held child out as his daughter. Mother subsequently moved and rebuffed father's attempts to visit child. Petitioner filed a filiation action to establish his paternity and right to visitation. Child filed a cross-complaint asserting that if she had more than one de facto father, she was entitled to maintain her filial relationship with both. Mother and respondent reconciled.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Respondent intervened, and the superior court granted his motion for summary judgment against petitioner and child. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. The Supreme Court affirmed.
CONCLUSION
Summary judgment affirmed; petitioner father did not have a liberty interest traditionally protected by society that would give rise to substantive due process rights, and petitioner child's due process claim failed for the same reason; in addition, petitioner child's equal protection challenge did not survive rational relationship scrutiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment