Court Opinion

ID: 9699007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:06:36.564553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:45.402534
License: Public Domain

Hallows, C. J.
(dissenting). I believe that a father of a child born out of wedlock should have parental rights *438and such rights should not be terminated without either his consent or notice of hearing and for good cause. But more important, I think a child born out of wedlock should have rights which should be recognized as zealously and wholeheartedly as those of a child born in wedlock. The common-law concept of an illegitimate child being a nullius films and within the doctrine of filius populi, stigmatized with shame and called a bastard although he was in no way responsible for the condition of his birth is an archaic, inhuman, and unsocial view.
I think secs. 48.42 and 48.43, Stats., relating to termination of parental rights and sec. 48.84 (1) (b) and (3), relating to adoptions, requiring only the consent of the mother, are unconstitutional when applied to a known father of a child born out of wedlock because they make a violation and a classification out of illegitimacy which is unreasonable and has no basis in fact excepting expediency. In Levy v. Louisiana (1968), 391 U. S. 68, 88 Sup. Ct. 1509; 20 L. Ed. 2d 436, the supreme court in holding unconstitutional a classification based upon illegitimacy as a basis for recovery under a wrongful-death statute stated, page 70:
“We start from the premises that illegitimate children are not 'nonpersons.’ They are humans, live, and have their being. They are clearly ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment.”
The court continued, page 71:
“In applying the Equal Protection Clause to social and economic legislation, we give great latitude to the legislature in making classifications. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489; Morey v. Doud, supra, at 465-466. ... we have been extremely sensitive when it comes to basic civil rights (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at 541; Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 669-670) and have not hesitated to strike down an invidious classification even though it had his*439tory and tradition on its side. (Brown v. Board, of Education, 347 U. S. 483; Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, supra, at 669). The rights asserted here involve the intimate, familial relationship between a child and his own mother. . . . Why should the illegitimate child be denied rights merely because of his birth out of wedlock? He certainly is subject to all the responsibilities of a citizen, including the payment of taxes and conscription under the Selective Service Act. How under our constitutional regime can he be denied correlative rights which other citizens enjoy?”
See also the related case of Glona v. American Guarantee Co. (1968), 391 U. S. 73, 88 Sup. Ct. 1515, 20 L. Ed. 2d 441.
I do not agree with the argument that a valid distinction exists between these cases and the case at bar. If illegitimacy is an unreasonable classification as a basis for recovering money, so much more should it be when it relates to the termination of an intimate familial relationship and paternity. I think the majority decision ignores the basic reasoning of those cases.
If a child born out of wedlock has a recognized right to have a mother and a family relationship, why must he be denied a father? Does the best interest of the child as a matter of law always demand even before the father’s identity is known, or even when his identity and his wishes are known, that his rights must be terminated and the child cared for by strangers; and more shocking, that no notice need be given to him of the termination of parental rights? In considering the best interest of the child, this court said in Lacker v. Venus (1922), 177 Wis. 558, 569, 570, 188 N. W. 613:
“A natural affection between the parents and offspring, though it may be naught but a refined animal instinct and stronger from the parent down than from the child up, has always been recognized as an inherent, natural right, for the protection of which, just as much as for the protection of the rights of the individual to *440life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our government is formed. We trust that it will never become the established doctrine that the state shall say to the parents, and particularly to the mother, she who doth travail, and in great pain bring forth her child and after labor doth rejoice that the child is born, that there is but a mere privilege and not a right to the subsequent affection, comfort, and pride of and in such child. . . .
“A money judgment entered against one without due notice is void, [citation omitted]
“If a man’s money shall not be legally taken away from him save by due process of law, much less shall his child.
“We do not deem it necessary to base this decision upon or dwell at any length upon such possible sordid, because material, grounds for our conclusion, but rest it upon the natural right of parenthood, a far finer and higher quality, and for that reason more sacredly to be upheld.”
Blood is thicker than water. What has the child to say to all of this ? It is claimed any rights of the father can only rest on the concept of chattel ownership of the child; not so. He is the biological, spiritual and natural father. It is the state in the role of a Good Samaritan with its theory of nonrights that treat the child as chattel. It is claimed the father would profit from his sin if his rights were recognized; yet the mother so profits. A father is required to pay the expenses of the mother for the birth of a child born out of wedlock and is responsible for its support; why should he be denied correlative rights ? As the supreme court said in Levy v. Louisiana, supra, page 71:
“Why should the illegitimate child be denied rights merely because of his birth out of wedlock ? He certainly is subject to all the responsibilities of a citizen, including the payment of taxes and conscription under the Selective Service Act. How under our constitutional regime can he be denied correlative rights which other citizens enjoy?”
I do not take the position that every father of an illegitimate child should have custody; but what I do *441contend is that such a father should have rights to custody which should not be destroyed or terminated without notice to him and a fair hearing and for proper reasons. The practical difficulty in recognizing parental rights of a father lies in the manner in which such rights are to be protected and the time within which they are to be exercised. See Comment, Disposition of the Illegitimate Child, — Father’s Right to Notice, U. of Ill. L. Forum (1968) 282; Note, Father of an Illegitimate Child — His Right to be Heard, 50 Minn. L. Rev. (1966), 1071.
The only basis given by the majority for the reasonableness of the classification based on illegitimacy is the nature of the adoptive process. But this argument is based not so much upon the essential nature of the adoption process as it is the convenience of what social welfare agencies consider to be necessary for their work. I think much of the fears of the social agencies in this field are groundless and their beneficial and humane work in the adoption field can be carried on successfully without ignoring the rights of the natural father. The difficulties of administration do not justify the complete elimination of the father’s consent for the termination of his parental rights in each and every case. If the natural father is known he should be given notice of termination of parental rights. The mother should be required to disclose the identity of the father of the child, if she knows; and if the circumstances are such that she does not know, then the case is one which the law cannot do very much about. Under the present law, fathers must come forward. But how can such a father come forward if there is no notice?
I would require a mother petitioning for termination of parental rights to disclose the identity of the father and require notice of the hearing to be given to the father. If the father defaults, the court should be permitted to *442enter a consent on his behalf. If the father appears, the termination would be decided on its merits. See Annot. (1954), Right of putative father to custody of illegitimate child, 37 A. L. E. 2d 882, for cases granting an admitted father the custody of his illegitimate child as against relatives.
In the case at bar, the petitioner should be given the opportunity to prove his paternity which he had acknowledged and if proved, his competency and suitability to care for the child on the issue of whether his parental rights to custody should be terminated.