Justices to Rule on Unwed Father’s Right to Child Given Up by Mother

The Supreme Court, in a case from San Diego, agreed today to study the rights of unwed fathers whose children are put up for adoption by their mothers.

At issue is whether unwed fathers who actively seek custody of their children may be stripped of all parental rights if adoption is deemed to be in the children’s best interest.

The justices said they will use a case from San Diego to review rulings that terminated Edward McNamara’s parental rights to his daughter, Katie, who is now 6 years old.

McNamara and Katie’s mother, unidentified in court records, had not seen each other for eight months when Katie was born in 1981. McNamara did not learn of the pregnancy or birth until he was told Katie, then a month old, had been placed in a foster home awaiting adoption.

He quickly sought custody.

5 Months Old by Trial

Katie was 5 months old before a trial was held on McNamara’s custody request, and a California judge ruled that it was in Katie’s best interest to stay with the foster parents she had been living with.

The foster parents wanted to adopt Katie, and the judge ruled that the baby girl had “bonded” with them.

The judge acknowledged that McNamara was a “good parent (who) can provide a good, loving home for the child.”

The California Supreme Court reversed the ruling, stating that custody could not be awarded to a nonparent unless awarding custody of the child to one of its parents who sought custody would be detrimental to the child.

The state’s highest court sent the case back to a trial court to determine whether the passage of time had made an award of custody to McNamara detrimental for Katie, by then adopted.

Role for Father Urged

The trial court in 1985 ruled against McNamara, and stripped him of all his parental rights to Katie. The judge, however, encouraged Katie’s adoptive parents to make McNamara part of Katie’s life.

In the appeal acted on today, McNamara argued that his treatment in the California courts violated his equal-protection rights.

He noted that wed fathers cannot lose their parental rights unless they are found to have no interest or ability in parenting the child.

And he noted that unwed mothers would not lose their parental rights under similar circumstances.

In other action the court:

--Agreed to decide whether payments, called “fixed donations,” made to the Church of Scientology by its members may be claimed as federal income tax deductions.

The court’s decision, expected sometime next year, will resolve conflicting rulings by federal appeals courts.

--Agreed to decide whether states may bar political party leaders from endorsing primary election candidates and whether states may regulate political party structure.

The justices said they will consider reinstating parts of a California law overturned as infringements on citizens’ rights to express themselves and associate with whom they please.

--Refused to let a Dallas blood bank withhold the names and medical records of its donors from a woman who says her husband contracted AIDS after receiving transfusions.

The court, without comment, let stand a ruling that donors’ privacy rights do not override Patty Jo Baker’s need to find out their identities for her wrongful-death lawsuit.