1032 (1979). Where a statute creates a presumption that a child born to a married woman living with her husband is a child of the marriage, and only the husband or wife may rebut this presumption, the United States Supreme Court determined in a plurality decision the statute did not violate the putative father’s substantive or procedural due process rights. See Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 129, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 2345, 105 L.Ed.2d 91, 109 (1989). The court also determined the statute did not violate the child’s due process rights to maintain a relationship with her putative father and did not violate her equal protection rights. Id. at 131, 109 S.Ct. at 2346, 105 L.Ed.2d at 111. There is currently a great deal of controversy over the Michael H. decision. See David Line Bat 2) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, it has been recognized
holding transfer eligibility rule did not deny the student equal protection of the laws or procedural or substantive due process under the fourteenth amendment holding statute that conferred putative father no standing to challenge paternity of a child born in wedlock did not deny due process or equal protection holding that florida statute did not constitute an unreasonable exercise of the states police power and rejecting due process and equal protection challenges holding statute denying putative father standing to bring legitimation action under statute in effect at the time did not violate due process or equal protection of state or federal constitutions holding a similar peer review confidentiality statute did not deny the plaintiffs equal protection