ABSTRACT
In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 US 110, the US Supreme Court grappled with a difficult fact pattern that struck at the heart of any individual's civil liberties: parental rights. Michael had an adulterous affair with his married neighbour, Carol. Carol gave birth to a baby and informed Michael that the baby was his and not her husband's. Michael wanted a parental relationship with his daughter, but neither Carol nor her current husband, Gerald, wanted Michael to play any role in the child's life. Michael H. v. Gerald D. was pivotal for several reasons. First, it laid out the various schools of thought among the justices on how the Court should recognize unenumerated but fundamental substantive due process rights. Second, the case addressed the question of who had a constitutionally protected interest in a relationship with a child: Biological fathers could not have an unconditional liberty interest in a relationship with their children because no tradition protected that right.
