Best interests remain the standard in California...in order to prevent a convicted rapist from exercising parental rights.

The dissent states, "Given the prevalence in today's world of fractured families and the relative ease of qualifying as a presumed 'natural father' -- especially under the majority's analysis in this case," he wrote, "thousands of biological fathers in California may now be at risk … although they have a loving, healthy and well-developed relationship with their children."

My question is...why is it the responsibility of the state to preserve those "loving, healthy and well-developed relationship(s)" where the biological fathers haven't done so themselves? Sounds like an effort to allow bio dads to maintain relationships without legal responsibilities...a concept which I find disgusting.