Other Cases Affecting Children

Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932 [952 P.2d 1139, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 871]. Supreme Court of California.

The Supreme Court held that the alleged biological father of a child born to a married woman did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest that would defeat the statutory presumption that the husband of the mother was the father. The trial court had denied the mother's motion for judgment on pleadings based on two contentions: (1) her husband was the presumed father and a child can have only one father, and (2) the alleged biological father was not in the class of persons granted standing to seek blood testing under the Family Code. The trial court reasoned that the Legislature-acknowledged presumption in favor of a spouse diminishes where the mother is not cohabiting with the husband at the time of conception. The mother filed a writ with the Court of Appeal to stay further proceedings and compel the trial court to vacate its order. The Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition and the mother petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

Under the Uniform Parentage Act a man is the presumed father if he (1) is married to the mother at birth or conception or (2) receives the child into his home and openly holds the child out as his natural child. The presumptions are rebuttable, affecting the burden of proof, and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence by a person with standing -- in a case involving the husband's paternity, the mother, the child, or the presumed father. The Supreme Court found that the alleged biological father did not have standing to challenge the presumption because he was neither married to the mother nor did he receive the child into his home and openly hold the child out as his own. The Court further rejected the alleged biological father's claim that he had a liberty interest, protected as a matter of substantive due process, to develop a relationship with the child. Relying on United States Supreme Court decisions, the Court found that since the alleged biological father never had a personal relationship with the child, he did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in being allowed to form a parental relationship with the child.