Court Opinion

ID: 9625208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:31:39.009124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:02.983741
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority fails to explain how the state’s objective of promoting a legitimate family unit is furthered by denying the father of an illegitimate child an action for that child’s wrongful death. The illegitimate child is already dead by the time the means chosen by the state comes into operation. The denial of a claim for a child’s wrongful death does not promote the family as an institution for rearing that child in a timely or rational manner regardless of the level of scrutiny employed. The sanction *204adopted by the state is not suited and comes too late to motivate a father to provide care for his illegitimate child. It treats the father of an illegitimate child differently from the mother of that same child and thus constitutes a denial of equal protection.
The majority seek to distinguish Glona v. American Guarantee &c. Ins. Co., supra, based on the difference in proving paternity vs. maternity, a ground which was expressly rejected in Trimble v. Gordon, supra, where the court stated that although a state might adopt a more demanding standard of proof for fathers of illegitimate children than for mothers, the extreme means of complete exclusion of recovery was not permissible. Becausé I cannot accept at face value the tortfeasor’s proffered state rationale or a distinction of Glona already rejected by the U. S. Supreme Court, I must respectfully dissent.