Michael H. v. Gerald D.
491 U.S. 110 (1989).

Facts: Michael H. (P) filed a filiation action to establish his paternity of and right to visit a child born to the wife of Gerald D. The court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the child. The child filed a cross-complaint asserting that if she had more than one de facto father, she was entitled to maintain her filial relationship with both. Gerald D. (D) intervened and moved for summary judgment under a statute that provided that the child of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage. The court granted the motion. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. P appeals.

Issues:
a) Is a California statute, providing that a child born to a married woman is presumed to be the child of the marriage, unconstitutional when this presumption infringes upon the due process rights of a man who wishes to establish his paternity of such a child?
b) Is such a statute unconstitutional when it infringes upon the constitu¬tional right of a child to maintain a relationship with her natural father?

Holding
a) The Due Process Clause affords only those protections so rooted in the history, traditions, and conscience of our society as to be ranked as fundamental.
b) The relationship between persons in the situation of P and his child has not been treated as a protected family unit under the traditions and practices of our society. The marital family has been protected. P does not have a protected liberty interest.

Rule: Procedural Due Process requires a fair procedural process before a government can deprive an individual of a liberty or properly interest recognized as fundamental by society tradition If an infringement of a fundamental right is evidenced, the law must be necessary to accomplish a compelling government interest and no less burdensome measure exists For an unenurnerated right to receive protection under Due Process it must be rooted in history and tradition

Analysis: Mother and respondent were married. Mother had an adulterous relationship with petitioner father. As a result petitioner child was born. Respondent was listed as father on child's birth certificate and held child out to the world as his daughter. Blood tests showed a 98.07 percent probability that petitioner was child's father. For a time, mother resided with petitioner, who held child out as his daughter. Mother subsequently moved and rebuffed father's attempts to visit child. Petitioner filed a filiation action to establish his paternity and right to visitation. Child filed a cross-complaint asserting that if she had more than one de facto father, she was entitled to maintain her filial relationship with both. Mother and respondent reconciled. Respondent intervened, and the superior court granted his motion for summary judgment against petitioner and child. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. The Supreme Court affirmed.