Michael H. v. Gerald D.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Family Law

491 U.S. 110 (1989)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawmarital presumptionpaternitysubstantive due processprocedural due processequal protectionlegitimacy presumptionfamily integrity

Facts

California law conclusively presumes that a child born to a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is a child of the marriage, and allows rebuttal only in limited circumstances by the husband or wife within two years of birth. Carole, who was married to Gerald and cohabiting with him, had an adulterous affair with Michael and later told Michael he might be the father of Victoria, who was born during the marriage. Blood tests showed a 98.07% probability that Michael was Victoria's father, and Michael at various times lived with Carole and Victoria and held Victoria out as his daughter. Gerald was listed as father on the birth certificate and always held Victoria out as his daughter, and he and Carole wished to raise Victoria as the offspring of their marriage.

Issue

Whether California's conclusive marital presumption of paternity violates the Due Process Clause by preventing a biological father from establishing paternity of a child conceived during and born into an existing marriage, and whether it violates the child's due process or equal protection rights by preventing her from maintaining a filial relationship with the biological father or rebutting the presumption herself.

Rule

A claimed liberty interest under substantive due process must be one traditionally protected by society and deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions. California's marital presumption is a substantive rule of law expressing a policy that, except in limited circumstances, it is irrelevant for paternity purposes whether a child conceived during and born into an existing marriage was biologically fathered by someone other than the husband. Where a child is born into an extant marital family and the husband and wife wish to raise the child as their own, the State may constitutionally give categorical preference to the marital family over the adulterous natural father. A child's equal protection challenge to exclusion from rebutting the presumption is reviewed under rational-basis review because, under state law, the child is legitimate.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Diego, Nina Cole was married to Aaron Cole and living with him when she conceived and gave birth to a child. During the marriage, Nina had an affair with Devin Shaw, whose genetic test later showed a 99% probability of biological paternity. A California-style statute conclusively treats the child as one of the marriage, except for narrow challenges timely brought by the spouses.

Devin argues that due process entitles him to an evidentiary hearing to prove biological paternity before the State may deny him legal father status. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority treated the marital presumption not as a mere evidentiary shortcut, but as a substantive rule of law expressing a legislative policy that, when a child is conceived during and born into an extant marriage the spouses wish to preserve, biological paternity is irrelevant for legal parentage. Because the law denies legal significance to the fact Devin wants to prove, procedural due process does not compel a hearing on that fact.