The California Supreme Court gave unwed fathers more influence over their children`s future by ruling that those willing to care and support for their offspring can stop the mother from giving the child up for adoption.
By a 6-1 vote on Thursday, the high court struck down part of a state law requiring an unwed father to have his child in his home before he can qualify as a ”presumed father,” entitled to the same parental rights as the unwed mother.
The law violates the constitutional equal-protection rights of unwed fathers who try to take full responsibility for the child but cannot because of the mother`s interference, the justices said.
If an unwed father ”promptly comes forward” and shows a ”full commitment to his parental responsibilities,” he should have the same powers as the mother in deciding whether to put the child up for adoption, wrote Justice Marvin Baxter in the majority opinion.
More Top Picks Pur Classic 11 Cup Pitcher
The court left the law intact in cases where the unwed father has not tried to take care of the child.
The court`s opinion arose after a woman identified in court records as Kari S. gave birth to a boy, Kelsey, in May 1988 and immediately put him up for adoption. The father, Rickie M., who was not married to Kari S., went to court two days after the birth in an attempt to gain custody of the boy.
Meanwhile, a couple from Santa Clara County, identified by the court only as Steven and Suzanne A., filed an adoption petition for the boy. The couple argued that only the mother`s consent was required because the father was not a ”presumed father” under state law.
A trial judge ruled that it was in the child`s best interest that the father not have any say in the boy`s adoption. A state Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
The couple have had custody of Kelsey while the case has been appealed.
In reversing the lower courts, the high court said that the state unfairly denied the unwed father ”presumed father” status because the mother prevented him from having contact with the child.
The court sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether Rickie M. had made enough of an attempt to take full responsibility for his son.
In a separate opinion, Justice Stanley Mosk agreed with the majority`s result, saying he could understand the motive for its decision. ”That does not justify, however, in effect throwing out the innocent baby with the statutory bath water,” Mosk said.