MICHAEL H VS GERALD D. : CASE SUMMRAY
The Supreme Court in Michael H Vs Gerald D (1989) upheld that California law which presumed child born to married wife to be child of the marriage even if the biological father was someone else.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Carole D., an international model, and Gerald D. a top executive in a French Oil Company was married in Las Vegas, Nevada. The couple established matrimonial home in Playa Del Rey, California. Carole got involved in adulterous affair with a neighbor Michael H. In September, 1980 she conceived a child Victoria D, who was born on May 11, 1981. Gerald was listed as father on the birth certificate. Carole informed Michael that he might be the father. Carole, Victoria and Michael had blood tests which showed 98.07% probability that Michael was Victoria’s father.
In November, 1982 Michael filed filiation action in California Superior Court to establish his paternity and right to visitation, which was rejected. Michael was unsuccessful before Court of Appeals. Finally, the matter reached to the Supreme Court.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. The Supreme Court noted that California Statute is more than a century old and gone through several amendments. In the present form, it provides that the issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is conclusively presumed to be a child of marriage. Such presumption can be rebutted by blood test. Such notice of blood test has to be given within 2 years of birth of child.
The Supreme Court observed that California Law did not provide for dual fatherhood. Michel was seeking to be declared father of Victoria although he was seeking visitation rights as immediate benefit. If Michael is declared father of Victoria, he will get also rights of custody including incidental rights of rearing, care, education, health etc.
It was contended by Michel that once he has established parental relationship with Victoria, he has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in his relationship with Victoria.
The Supreme Court observed that due process affords only those protections which are rooted in the traditions and conscience of people as to be ranked as fundamental. The presumption of legitimacy is a fundamental principle of common law. Such presumption could only be rebutted on the proof that husband was incapable of procreation or had no access to wife.
The Supreme Court observed that issue involved is not entitlement to a state pronouncement that Victoria was begotten by Michael. What is asserted by Michael is that he be declared the natural father and thereby to obtain parental prerogatives. What has to be established is not paternity but society has accorded such a person parental right.
The Supreme Court observed that Victoria’s due process challenge is even weaker than Michael. She claims a due process right to maintain filial relationship with both Michael and Gerald. The claim that a State must recognize multiple fatherhood has no support in history or traditions. The Supreme Court also rejected contention of Victoria that she had no opportunity to rebut the presumption of her legitimacy. The Supreme Court observed that illegitimacy is legal construct not a natural trait. She is treated similarly as other legitimate children. She is entitled to maintain filial relationship with legal parents.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of California Court of Appeals.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE BRENNAN
Justice Brennan delivered dissenting opinion. He disapproved the Court’s reliance on tradition. Justice Brennan observed that original reasons for the conclusive presumption are out of place in a world in which blood tests could prove virtually beyond a shadow of a doubt who sired a particular child and in which fact of illegitimacy no longer plays burdensome and stigmatic role as once it did. American society is not assimilative and homogenous one but a facilitative and pluralistic one wherein one must be willing to abide by someone else’s unfamiliar even repellent practice. Liberty must include the freedom not to confirm. The better question would have been whether parent child relationship is aspect of “liberty”.
__________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.