RIVERA v. MINNICH
No. 86-98
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 25, 1987-Decided June 25, 1987
483 U.S. 574
Mary Louise Barton argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee.*
JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Pennsylvania statute governing proceedings brought against a defendant to establish his paternity of a child born out of wedlock specifies that the “burden of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.”1 This appeal presents the question whether a determination of paternity by that evidentiary standard complies with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We agree with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania‘s conclusion that applying the preponderance standard to this determination is constitutionally permissible.
On May 28, 1983, appellee Jean Marie Minnich, an unmarried woman, gave birth to Cory Michael Minnich. Three weeks later, appellee filed a complaint for child support in the Common Pleas Court of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, against appellant Gregory Rivera, alleging that he was the father of her son. In advance of trial appellant requested the court to rule that the statutory burden of proof of paternity violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and to instruct the jury that paternity must be established by clear and convincing evidence. The trial judge denied the motion. Applying the preponderance standard, the jury unanimously found that appellant is the father of the child. On appellant‘s post-trial motions, the trial judge reconsidered his ruling on the burden of proof issue and granted appellant‘s motion for a new trial. Appellee appealed directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held that the statute is constitutional and reinstated the jury‘s verdict. 509 Pa. 588, 506 A. 2d 879 (1986).
The State Supreme Court noted that the standard was entitled to the presumption that legislative enactments are valid, and is the same as that approved by a majority of the jurisdictions that regard paternity suits as civil proceedings. Then, after reviewing the respective interests of the putative father, the mother, and the child,2 as well as “the interest of
II
The preponderance of the evidence standard that the Pennsylvania Legislature has prescribed for paternity cases is the standard that is applied most frequently in litigation between private parties in every State.5 More specifically, it is the
The converse of this proposition is that a principal reason for any constitutionally mandated departure from the preponderance standard has been the adoption of a more exacting burden of proof by the majority of jurisdictions. In each of the three cases in which we have held that a standard of proof prescribed by a state legislature was unconstitutional, our judgment was consistent with the standard imposed by most jurisdictions. Thus, in explaining our conclusion that proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required, we stated:
“Although virtually unanimous adherence to the reasonable-doubt standard in common-law jurisdictions may not conclusively establish it as a requirement of due process, such adherence does ‘reflect a profound judg-
ment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered.’ Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 155 (1968).” In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 361-362 (1970).
Similarly, in Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979), our rejection of Texas’ argument that a preponderance standard of proof was sufficient in a civil proceeding to commit an individual to a state mental hospital involuntarily was supported by the fact that a majority of the States had chosen to apply either a clear and convincing standard, id., at 431-432, nn. 6, 7, and 8, or the even more demanding criminal law standard, id., at 430-431, and n. 5. And in Santosky v. Kramer, which presented the question whether New York could extinguish a pre-existing parent-child relationship without requiring greater factual certainty than a fair preponderance of the evidence, we began our analysis by noting that 38 jurisdictions required a higher standard of proof in proceedings to terminate parental rights. 455 U. S., at 749-750.
Appellant‘s principal argument is that the standard of proof required by our holding in Santosky to terminate the parent-child relationship is also constitutionally required to create it. This view of Santosky rests on the tacit assumption of an equivalence between the State‘s imposition of the legal obligations accompanying a biological relationship between parent and child and the State‘s termination of a fully existing parent-child relationship. We are unable to accept this assumption. The collective judgment of the many state legislatures which adhere to a preponderance standard for paternity proceedings rests on legitimate and significant distinctions between termination and paternity proceedings.
First, there is an important difference between the ultimate results of a judgment in the two proceedings. Resolving the question whether there is a causal connection between an alleged physical act of a putative father and the subsequent birth of the plaintiff‘s child sufficient to impose financial liability on the father will not trammel any pre-
Second, there is an important distinction between the parties’ relationship to each other in the two proceedings. As is
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is therefore
Affirmed.
JUSTICE O‘CONNOR, concurring in the judgment.
I believe that the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should be affirmed for the reasons set forth by JUSTICE REHNQUIST in dissent in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 770-791 (1982). “Both theory and the precedents of this Court teach us solicitude for state interests, particularly in the field of family and family-property arrangements.” United States v. Yazell, 382 U. S. 341, 352 (1966). Particu-
JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting.
I cannot agree with the Court that a determination of paternity is no more significant than the resolution of “a monetary dispute between private parties.” Ante, at 577-578, n. 5, quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 423 (1979). What is at stake for a defendant in such a proceeding is not merely the prospect of a discrete payment in satisfaction of a limited obligation. Rather, it is the imposition of a lifelong relationship with significant financial, legal, and moral dimensions.
Financially, a paternity determination results in ongoing, open-ended support responsibility. A parent is responsible for supporting a child at least until the child is 18, see, e. g.,
The obligation created by a determination of paternity is enforced by significant legal sanctions. Failure to comply with a support obligation may result in the attachment of income,
“Apart from the putative father‘s pecuniary interest in avoiding a substantial support obligation and liberty interest threatened by the possible sanctions for noncompliance, at issue is the creation of a parent-child relationship.” Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. 1, 13 (1981). The judgment that a defendant is the father of a particular child is the pronouncement of more than mere financial responsibility. It is also a declaration that a defendant assumes a cultural role with distinct moral expectations. Most of us see parenthood as a lifelong status whose responsibilities flow from a wellspring far more profound than legal decree. Some men may find no emotional resonance in fatherhood. Many, however, will come to see themselves far differently, and will necessarily expand the boundaries of their moral sensibility to encompass the child that has been found to be their own. The establishment of a parental relationship may at the outset have fewer emotional consequences than the termination of one. It has,
Finally, the losing defendant in a paternity suit is subject to characterization by others as a father who sought to shirk responsibility for his actions. See, e. g., County of Hennepin v. Brinkman, 378 N. W. 2d 790, 794, (Minn. 1985) (“[T]he social stigma resulting from an adjudication of paternity cannot be ignored“) (citation omitted); Tennessee Dept. of Human Services v. Vaughn, 595 S. W. 2d 62, 67 (Tenn. 1980) (losing defendant in paternity proceeding “branded as the bearer of a bastard child“); Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 220 Pa. Super. 31, 37, 279 A. 2d 251, 254 (1971) (“Inevitably, paternity proceedings, whether labeled civil or criminal, result in a certain community stigma following a judicial acknowledgment of the parents’ impropriety“). He is seen as a parent apparently impervious to the moral demands of that role, who must instead be coerced by law to fulfill his obligation. Regardless of whether a satisfying parent-child relationship ultimately develops, the father will be seen as a person whose initial participation in it was involuntary. By contrast, the losing party in a civil suit is rarely the target of such social opprobrium.2
It is likely that the requirement that paternity be proved by clear and convincing evidence would make a practical difference only in cases in which blood test results were not introduced as evidence. In such cases, what I wrote over 35 years ago is still true: “in the field of contested paternity . . . the truth is so often obscured because social pressures create a conspiracy of silence or, worse, induce deliberate falsity.” Cortese v. Cortese, 10 N. J. Super. 152, 156, 76 A. 2d 717, 719 (1950). Recognition of this fact, as well as of the gravity of imposing a parental relationship upon a defendant, should lead us to require a more demanding standard of proof than a mere preponderance of the evidence.
I respectfully dissent.
Notes
“Trial of Paternity-Where the paternity of a child born out of wedlock is disputed, the determination of paternity shall be made by the court without a jury unless either party demands trial by jury. The trial, whether or not a trial by jury is demanded, shall be a civil trial and there shall be no right to a criminal trial on the issue of paternity. The burden of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The statute was repealed on October 30, 1985; its successor also provides that the burden of proof in a paternity action “shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.”
“The child born out of wedlock, on the other hand, has an interest in knowing his father and in having two parents to provide and care for him. The child‘s concerns include a known belonging to a certain line of descent with knowledge of any benefits or detriments inheritable from that line. Further, the child is entitled to financial assistance from each parent able to provide such support.
“The mother has an interest in receiving from the child‘s natural father help, financial and otherwise, in raising and caring for the child born out of wedlock. She has an interest in seeing that her child has two responsible parents.” 509 Pa., at 593-594, 506 A. 2d, at 882. Of course, a child also has an interest in not being stigmatized as illegitimate. As we have stressed, however, an illegitimate child cannot be held responsible for his or her status. See Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 (1977). By contrast, the stigma that attaches to the father of such a child reflects a judgment regarding moral culpability. In addition, as I discuss in text this page, I believe that the child‘s interest in legitimation would not be significantly burdened by the employment of a “clear and convincing” standard.
“The Commonwealth has an interest in its infant citizens having two parents to provide and care for them. There is a legitimate interest in not furnishing financial assistance for children who have a father capable of support. The Commonwealth is concerned in having a father responsible for a child born out of wedlock. This not only tends to reduce the welfare burden by keeping minor children, who have a financially able parent, off the rolls, but it also provides an identifiable father from whom potential recovery may be had of welfare payments which are paid to support the child born out of wedlock.” Id., at 594, 506 A. 2d, at 882.