Also known as: paternity · maternity · filation
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The legal status of being a parent to a child, established through biological relationship, assisted reproduction agreements, or judicial determination.
Paula Pierce gave birth to a child after ending her relationship with Pedro Pacheco. Pedro visited the newborn weekly, paid support, and filed a paternity action within days of the birth. When Paula later consented to adoption by a third party, Pedro objected and sought custody. The court recognized his protected interest because he had manifested parental responsibility through consistent contact and financial support.
Pearl Porter served as gestational surrogate for Pablo Perez and his wife under a written agreement. After delivery, Pearl sought to establish parentage in her favor. The court applied the Uniform Probate Code provision directing that parentage in assisted reproduction with a surrogate be determined under the applicable state parentage act rather than automatic genetic rules.
Parker Phillips, a nonmarital child, filed a paternity suit six years after birth seeking support from his alleged father. State law barred such actions after six years for nonmarital children while allowing marital children to seek support indefinitely. The court struck down the limitation because it failed intermediate scrutiny and was not substantially related to preventing stale claims.
Peter Park donated sperm to a recipient under an oral understanding that he would have no parental rights. Years later he sought visitation after learning the child had been born. The court denied his claim because Kansas law requires a written agreement to preserve donor paternity and no such writing existed.
Pablo Perez died intestate leaving substantial assets. His nonmarital daughter Pearl sought to inherit but had never obtained a lifetime paternity adjudication. State law conditioned nonmarital inheritance on such an adjudication. The court upheld the requirement as substantially related to the orderly administration of estates and denied the claim.
Pedro Pacheco died leaving an estate. His nonmarital son Parker had lived with him and received support but never obtained a formal paternity decree during life. State probate law limited inheritance by nonmarital children to those whose paternity was established before death. The court enforced the rule and excluded Parker from the estate.
Deta Mona Trimble is the illegitimate daughter of Jessie Trimble and Sherman Gordon. Trimble and Gordon lived together in Chicago with Deta Mona from 1970 until Gordon died in 1974 as the victim of a homicide. On January 2, 1973, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, entered a paternity order finding Gordon to be the father of Deta Mona and ordering him to pay fifteen dollars per week for her support. Gordon thereafter supported Deta Mona in accordance with the paternity order and openly acknowledged her as his child. Gordon died intestate at the age of twenty-eight, leaving an estate consisting only of a 1974 Plymouth automobile worth approximately twenty-five hundred dollars. Shortly after Gordon's death, Trimble, as the mother and next friend of Deta Mona, filed a petition for letters of administration, determination of heirship, and declaratory relief in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County. That court entered an order determining heirship, identifying as the only heirs of Gordon his father Joseph Gordon, his mother Ethel King, and his brother, two sisters, and a half brother. The Circuit Court excluded Deta Mona on the authority of section twelve of the Illinois Probate Act. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court on the authority of its earlier decision in In re Estate of Karas. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to consider the arguments that section twelve violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by invidiously discriminating on the basis of illegitimacy and sex.
He must demonstrate actual manifestations of parental responsibility such as living with the child, visiting regularly, admitting paternity, paying support, and showing willingness to assume custody rather than merely blocking adoption.
Parentage is determined under the Uniform Parentage Act Article 8 or equivalent state parentage statutes rather than automatic genetic or gestational presumptions.
…this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also…
…is high during the pregnancy and often the worst abuse can be associated with pregnancy. . . . The battering husband may deny parentage
…until Gordon died in 1974, the victim of a homicide. On January 2, 1973, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., had entered a paternity order finding Gordon to be the father of Deta Mona and ordering him to pay $15 per week for her support. Gordon thereafter supported Deta Mona in accordance with the
…locate, particularly during a child's infancy. We suggested the legislature might make proof of abandonment easier or proof of paternity
…original base), which amounts to 12.1% of the original base [.17 x .71 = .121]. : The subsequent family or subsequent paternity judgment requirement we today hold has the effect of clarifying that the "children legally under his or her care" phrase means only children legally under his or her care who precede the…
The statute failed intermediate scrutiny because it was not substantially related to the state's interest in preventing stale or fraudulent claims when marital children faced no such limit.
Only when a written agreement with the recipient expressly preserves the donor's paternity. Without the writing the donor has no legal parent status.
Yes, because the requirement is substantially related to the important governmental interest in orderly and efficient disposition of property at death by reducing fraud and uncertainty.
Intermediate scrutiny requires that the classification be substantially related to an important governmental objective such as preventing fraud in estate administration.