Michael H. v. Gerald D.
Michael H. v. Gerald D. | |
---|---|
Argued October 11, 1988 Decided June 15, 1989 | |
Full case name | Michael H. and Victoria D. v. Gerald D. |
Citations | 491 U.S. 110 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | Summary judgment for defendant aff'd, 191 Cal. App. 3d 995 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987); probable jurisdiction noted, 485 U.S. 903 (1988) |
Holding | |
California's conclusive-presumption law does not violate the Due Process Clause. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist; O'Connor and Kennedy (in part) |
Concurrence | O'Connor (in part), joined by Kennedy |
Concurrence | Stevens (in judgment) |
Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun |
Dissent | White, joined by Brennan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), was a case decided by the
Background
The biological fathers of
According to The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, the facts of the dispute "more closely resembled a soap opera synopsis than a typical Supreme Court case".[2] Carole D.[a] was a model; in 1976, she wed Gerald D., who worked as an executive in a French oil corporation. The couple resided in Playa del Rey, California. Beginning in 1978, Carole had an affair with Michael H., who was her next-door neighbor.[4] In 1981, she gave birth to a child, Victoria D.; the birth certificate listed Gerald as the father, but Carole told Michael that she thought that the child was his. Blood tests taken later that year indicated with 98.07% certainty that Michael was Victoria's father. Throughout 1982, Victoria and Carole resided in multiple homes, living with Michael, Gerald, or someone else.[1]
Carole eventually refused to let Michael visit Victoria, and he filed suit in
The superior court granted Gerald's motion, rejected challenges by Victoria (represented by a
Decision
The Court handed down its decision on June 15, 1989. Dividing five to four,
Plurality opinion
For the plurality, Scalia rejected Michael's argument that he had a procedural-due-process right to be heard regarding his paternity claim, reasoning that the challenged California law was substantive rather than procedural. Treating Michael's arguments as an invocation of substantive due process, the plurality then concluded that he had no constitutionally protected liberty interest in his relationship with Victoria. Scalia reasoned that since courts ought to be hesitant to embrace substantive-due-process arguments, only liberty interests that have been "traditionally protected by our society" are constitutionally protected.[1] His sixth footnote asserted that the judiciary should assess claims of constitutionally protected liberty interests by looking to "the most specific level at which a relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right can be identified". He therefore reasoned that the case involved the "rights of an adulterous natural father" and that such rights had not traditionally been protected by American society.[6]
O'Connor's concurrence
O'Connor, joined by Kennedy, filed a short concurrence in which she declined to join Scalia's sixth footnote on the grounds that it "may be somewhat inconsistent with our past decisions in this area".[6] She wrote that she did not wish to "foreclose the unanticipated by the prior imposition of a single mode of historical analysis".[9]
Stevens's concurrence
Stevens concluded that although Michael was not entitled to a hearing on his paternity claim as such, he was entitled to a hearing regarding visitation and other related parental rights. Another California law permitted non-parents to seek visitation if visitation was in the child's best interests. Since this provision provided process to Michael, Stevens reasoned that any liberty interest he had was sufficiently protected.[10]
Brennan's dissent
Brennan filed what Anna Quindlen described as a "withering dissent". He wrote:[11]
The document that the plurality construes today is unfamiliar to me. It is not the living charter that I have taken to be our Constitution; it is instead a stagnant, archaic, hidebound document steeped in the prejudices and superstitions of a time long past. This Constitution does not recognize that times change, does not see that sometimes a practice or rule outlives its foundations. I cannot accept an interpretive method that does such violence to the charter that I am bound by oath to uphold.
Brennan argued that under prior precedent, a protected liberty interest was present because Michael and Victoria were biologically connected and had an established relationship. He rejected the plurality's emphasis on the "unitary family" and its willingness to dismiss the procedural-due-process claim. He also disagreed with Stevens's interpretation of California law, arguing that it constituted merely "wishful thinking" since California courts did not afford visitation to putative fathers whose claims had been rejected under section 621.[1]
White's dissent
White rejected the plurality's conclusion that the issue of biological fatherhood was not relevant since Victoria had been born into a legal marriage. He concluded that Michael had the same sort of liberty interest as had been recognized in prior cases and that California had deprived him of it without due process of law.[1]
Notes
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Kisthardt, Mary Kay (1991). "Of Fatherhood, Families, and Fantasy: The Legacy of Michael H. v. Gerald D.". Tulane Law Review. 65 (3): 585–662.
- ^ ProQuest 307153317. Retrieved August 28, 2022.
- ^ Savage, David G. (June 16, 1989). "U.S. Supreme Court Upholds California Law on Paternity". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 4, 2022.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-8147-2301-2.
- ^ Whittier Law Review. 22 (2): 327.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-7425-6257-8.
- ISBN 978-0-685-28880-1.
- ^ Smith, Sharon (2000). "Michael H. v. Gerald D.". Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues. 11 (1): 475–480.
- ISBN 978-1-62810-308-3.
- ISBN 978-0-02-866124-7.
- ISBN 978-0-393-04110-1.
External links
- Text of Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)