'FATHER' ROLE IS BEST WHEN EARNED.

Byline: CHRIS WEINKOPF

THE California State Supreme Court has given a man known in court documents only as ``Thomas G.'' the ultimate gift this Father's Day: a son.

Thomas, a Lakewood salesman, is not 7-year-old Nicholas H.'s biological father, nor has he ever filed adoption papers. He's not married to Kimberly H., the boy's mom, and he never has been. Yet he's the only dad Nicholas has ever known, and according to the state's highest court, so he will remain.

In a woeful tale of dysfunction that could only come from the bowels of the state's family-law system, Kimberly and Thomas began living together back in 1995 when she was three months pregnant by another man, Jason.

Because Jason never showed any interest in caring for the child he sired, little Nicholas, like millions of other children, would have gone fatherless were it not for Thomas, who stepped in to play the role of dad. Thomas was there the day Nicholas was born, and he signed the baby's birth certificate. From the very beginning, he introduced himself as the boy's father, and as soon as Nicholas could talk, he was calling Thomas ``dad.'' Thomas did all that fathers are supposed to do, and all that Jason did not, providing for Kimberly and Nicholas and keeping them under his roof.

Thomas and Kimberly's relationship, marked by mutual allegations of domestic violence, broke up three years later. After a one-year hiatus, the couple tried and failed to get back together. When they broke up again, apparently for good, the question arose as to who would get custody of Nicholas - a question made more complicated by Kimberly's mental instability, drug problems and occasional homelessness.

Under state law, men are deemed ``presumed fathers'' if, like Thomas, they have always acted in that capacity. But the presumption of fatherhood can be rebutted if there's convincing evidence to the contrary, which, in this case, there is - Thomas has admitted that he's not what the legal community casually refers to as a ``bio-dad.''

The question before the Supreme Court thus turned on a narrow interpretation of the California Family Code: Does the existence of contradictory evidence automatically rebut presumed fatherhood, or must a rebuttal come about as part of an ``appropriate action,'' such as a lawsuit from a long lost bio-dad seeking custody of his estranged offspring?

That's the million-dollar question, and one with ramifications extending well beyond the case of Nicholas H.

The court concluded that there was no ``appropriate action'' to warrant rescinding Thomas' claims to fatherhood, even though they clearly have no biological basis. Parental bonds are thicker than blood, and Nicholas now has a father that no California court can ever take away.

Beneath the legal mumbo-jumbo, the copious references to past precedent and the hair-splitting definitions, the court ultimately based its decision on the most important criterion of all: The best interest of the child. Without Thomas, Nicholas, with no father whatsoever and no mother capable of raising him, would have become a ward of the state. There are already a shameful number of fatherless children in California; there was little reason for its Supreme Court to create any more.

The human wreckage left by cases like Nicholas' is an important reminder that what modern society tends to dismiss as ``merely'' moral questions can have profound and devastating repercussions. When sex, marriage and parenthood are trivialized and separated, an abundance of broken homes, absentee parents and devastated children will invariably follow. Trial judges are left with the unenviable task of cleaning up the mess, and often, there are no clear answers.

The California Supreme Court's decision to let Thomas retain custody of Nicholas is, to be sure, the best one possible as far as this father and child are concerned, but it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent. It opens the door to anyone who has had some sort of relationship with a child - whether biological or not - to make future claims to some sort of legally enforced relationship. Ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends, even their parents or siblings, anyone who can claim once to have bonded with a child, could now petition for a right to some sort of relationship, even over the objection of legal or biological parents.

But in an imperfect world, there's no such thing as a perfect legal standard, especially in matters as complex as family relationships. Besides, an influx of would-be parents would be a welcome change of pace after the era of the deadbeat dad.

It doesn't take much to become a bio-dad. Becoming a ``father,'' in the true sense of the word, is a trickier and nobler undertaking. The title is one of honor, and Thomas has earned it.