would be no challenge to his capacity to sue, other unmarried fathers whose paternity is challenged may be unable — particularly when, as here, the mother is dead — to offer sufficient evidence to convince the factfinder of paternity. 10 Cf. Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495 (1976) (upholding the denial of survivors’ benefits under the Social Security Act to illegitimate children unless they are entitled to inherit under state intestacy law or are able to show paternity in one of several other ways, including written acknowledgment by the father, 42 U. S. C. § 402 (d) (3)). 11 Certainly, the Court has not shown such solicitude for the problem of an erroneous determination of paternity when the claimed father is the defendant rather than the plaintiff. See Gomez v. Perez, supra, at 538 (<HOLDING>). 12 See also Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71, 76
recognizing state laws can be preempted by federal regulations as well as by federal legislation holding that a state must entitle illegitimate as well as legitimate children to paternal support we recognize the lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity those problems are not to be lightly brushed aside but neither can they be made into an impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 holding that there can be no plain error where neither we nor the supreme court has addressed an issue