Michael H. v. Gerald D.

A Case Study of Political Ideology Disguised in Legal Thought
Article
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

The author attempts to apply semiotic analysis to a question of family law. By examining the language used by the Supreme Court in the title case, Michael H. v. Gerald D., along with the case briefs, lower court opinions, other Supreme Court cases and prior legal scholarship, the author attempts to determine the requisite relationships between father–child and father–mother in order for a legal tie to exist between a father and his biological child. The author tries to not only determine the necessary circumstances but also the political ideology that distinguishes these familial ties. The author further attempts to analyze the goals of these underlying political ideologies.

References

  1. 1.
    Balkin, J. M. 1989–1990. The Hohfeldian approach to law and semiotics. University of Miami Law Review 44 (1119): 1120.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brief for Appellee, Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) (No. 87–746), 1988 WL 1025582.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brief for Appellant Victoria D., Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) (No. 87–746), 1987 WL 880074.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michael H. v. Gerald D., 191 Cal. App. 3d 995 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silber, Bonnie Baxt. 1992. How irrebuttable is the irrebuttable presumption of paternity in section 621 of the California Evidence Code? An examination of Michael H. v. Gerald D. and its Aftermath in California. Journal of Juvenile Law 13: 159.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loconto, T. Carmen. 1992. Family law—the substantial relationship test: The putative father gains standing to rebut the presumption of legitimacy–C.C. v A.B. Western New England Law Review 14: 79.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rogers, Brie S. 2001–2002. The presumption of paternity in child support cases: A triumph of law over biology. University of Cincinnati Law Review 70: 1151.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.C. v. A.B., 406. Mass. 550 N.E.2d 365, 369 (Mass. 1990).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beckerman, Stephen, Roberto Lizarralde, Carol Ballew, Sissel Schroeder, Christina Fingelton, Angela Garrison, and Helen Smith. 1998. The Bari partible paternity project: Preliminary results. Current Anthropology 39: 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, Timothy E. 1999. Social norms and judicial decision making: Examining the role of narratives in same-sex adoption cases. Columbia Law Review 99: 739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Black’s Law Dictionary 637 (8th ed. 2004).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hadek, David V. 1996–1997. Why the policy behind the irrebuttable presumption of paternity will never die. Southwestern University Law Review 26: 359.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dickinson School of LawPennsylvania State UniversityCarlisleUSA

Personalised recommendations