Also known as: nonmarital child · non-marital children · non-marital child · non marital children · children born out of wedlock
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A child born to parents who are not married to each other. The law affords such children constitutional protections against discrimination on the basis of birth status.
Peter Stanley lived with his nonmarital child and the child's mother in a shared home for several years. After the mother died, state officials removed the child without notice or a hearing on Stanley's fitness. The removal violated due process because the established family relationship required an opportunity to be heard before severance.
Nolan Nunez created a trust benefiting his children. His nonmarital daughter Natasha had lived with him during childhood. The trust distribution included Natasha because the gift was created by the genetic parent and no contrary intention appeared in the instrument.
Neville Norton filed a paternity and support action on behalf of his nonmarital child seven years after birth. State law imposed a six-year limit on such claims while allowing marital children to seek support indefinitely. The limit failed intermediate scrutiny because the state offered no substantial relation to preventing stale claims.
Nadia Novak sought an intestate share from her father's estate. State law required formal paternity establishment during the father's lifetime. Because no such adjudication occurred, the court denied the claim even though DNA evidence later confirmed the relationship.
Naveen Nanda's nonmarital child was excluded from the father's intestate estate under a statute barring all such children from paternal inheritance. The total exclusion violated equal protection because it penalized the child for the parents' marital status without a substantial relation to any important state interest.
Nordic Ventures distributed benefits to the issue of a deceased employee. The employee's nonmarital child presented genetic evidence of descent. The distribution included the child because modern intestacy rules treat nonmarital descendants as issue when consanguinity is established.
In January 1993, Lauren Woodward and her husband Warren Woodward, who had been married for approximately three and one-half years and remained childless, learned that Warren had leukemia. The couple arranged for a quantity of Warren's semen to be medically withdrawn and preserved through a process known as sperm banking before he began treatment. Warren underwent an unsuccessful bone marrow transplant and died in October 1993, after which Lauren was appointed administratrix of his estate. In October 1995, Lauren gave birth to twin girls who had been conceived through artificial insemination using Warren's preserved semen. In January 1996, she applied to the Social Security Administration for child's insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1) and mother's benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(g)(1). The SSA denied the claims on the ground that the twins were not the husband's children within the meaning of the Act. In February 1996, while pursuing appeals from the SSA denial, Lauren filed a complaint for correction of birth record in the Probate and Family Court against the clerk of the city of Beverly, seeking to add Warren as the father on the twins' birth certificates. In October 1996, a Probate Court judge entered a judgment of paternity based on stipulations of voluntary acknowledgment of parentage and ordered the birth certificates amended to declare Warren the children's father. An administrative law judge conducted a de novo hearing. The judge concluded that the children did not qualify for benefits because they were not entitled to inherit from Warren under Massachusetts intestacy and paternity laws. The SSA appeals council affirmed that decision. Lauren appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The court certified the question regarding the inheritance rights of posthumously conceived children under Massachusetts intestacy law to the Supreme Judicial Court because the parties agreed that a determination under state law was dispositive and no directly applicable precedent existed.
View caseClassifications based on illegitimacy receive intermediate scrutiny. The state must show that the classification is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
Yes. Such a requirement is substantially related to the important governmental interest in orderly and efficient disposition of property at death by reducing fraud and uncertainty.
Yes. A total exclusion punishes children for their parents' conduct and is not substantially related to any important governmental interest.
The nonmarital child is included unless the language or circumstances establish that the transferor had a different intention.
The state cannot automatically remove the child upon the mother's death without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard on whether the parental relationship should be severed.
…into the world. Even putting to one side the growing number of childless marriages and the burgeoning number of children born out of wedlock, that sort of reasoning cannot justify this deliberate discrimination against the poor. The statute prevents impoverished parents from marrying even though their intended spouses are…