California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Cheyanna M. v. A.C. Nielsen Co., 66 Cal.App.4th 855, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 335 (Cal. App. 1998):
Similarly, in Kyne v. Kyne, supra, 38 Cal.App.2d 122, 100 P.2d 806, where the court held that a father has a duty to support his unborn child, the court noted that section 43.1 "comes into operation whenever it is in the interests of the child that it should come into operation.... [T]he word 'interests,' appearing in the section means 'anything that is profitable or beneficial to the child.' ... It is clearly to the best 'interests' of the child that its father be compelled to support it, if the mother cannot, prior to its birth." (38 Cal.App.2d at p. 127, 100 P.2d 806.)
A concern for the child's best interests was also at work in Lavell v. Adoption Institute, supra, 185 Cal.App.2d 557, 8 Cal.Rptr. 367. As discussed, in that case, an unmarried couple had a child, which the mother put up for adoption without the father's consent. The father successfully sued the adoption agency for custody of the child. In applying section 43.1, the court said:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.