491 U.S. 110 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989)
Michael H. v.
Does the Due Process Clause confer on a biological father who has developed a relationship with a child born into an intact marriage a fundamental liberty interest to assert paternity and parental rights in contravention of a state's conclusive marital presumption of legitimacy? Additionally, does the statute's limitation on rebuttal and standing violate Equal Protection as applied to the biological father and the child?
States may establish and enforce a strong—indeed conclusive—marital presumption of legitimacy for children born to a married woman cohabiting with her husband. The Constitution does not recognize, as a fundamental liberty interest, the right of an adulterous biological father to assert parental rights that would disrupt the marital family into which the child was born. In the absence of a fundamental right, such statutes are reviewed under rational basis and will be upheld if they rationally further legitimate state interests (including family integrity, privacy of the marital unit, and avoidance of paternity litigation). A plurality framed substantive due process analysis by looking to the most specific level of historical tradition to define the asserted right; a separate concurrence declined to endorse that methodology but agreed no constitutional violation occurred on these facts.
The Court upheld California's conclusive marital presumption as applied. The biological father had no fundamental liberty interest under the Due Process Clause to establish paternity or obtain parental rights where the child was born into an intact marriage protected by the presumption, and the statute did not violate Equal Protection.
Michael H. is a cornerstone in understanding the marital presumption and the constitutional status of putative fathers' claims. It teaches that: (1) biology plus a developed relationship does not automatically yield a fundamental right when the child is born into an intact marriage; (2) states may prioritize marital family integrity through strong presumptions that are difficult or impossible for third parties to rebut; (3) in family law/due process cases, how the right is characterized is often outcome-determinative; and (4) fractured Supreme Court decisions can produce a binding judgment without a single majority rationale, requiring students to parse what is precedential (the result and parts of the reasoning) and what is merely persuasive (e.g., the plurality's most-specific-tradition methodology, which did not command a majority). For practice, the case remains a leading authority when litigants challenge conclusive or time-limited marital presumptions and in assessing the constitutional limits of genetic parentage claims.