Links for opinion: http://www.pacourts.us/T/SupremeCourt/SupremePostings.htm, and http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1595238.html.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in K.E.M. v. P.C.S., J-74-2011, No. 67 MAP 2011, 2012 WL573638 (Pa. Feb. 21, 2012) reconciled the related doctrines of paternity estoppel and the presumption of paternity by establishing a new guideline, the best interest of the child.
The case stems from the birth of a child due to the mother’s extra-marital affair. The married couple had separated, but neither had filed for divorce. A genetic test eliminated the husband as the child’s genetic father. The alleged father refused to be tested. The husband did not sign the birth certificate, but claimed the child on the couple’s joint tax filings. The alleged father provided some contact and gifts.
The mother filed a complaint to have the alleged father pay child support. The alleged father filed to dismiss on the grounds the child had been held out as the husband’s own in an intact marriage. The common pleas court granted the motion to dismiss considering that reconciliation was possible and the husband “continued to provide emotional and financial support”. KEM, No. 01174SA2010, slip op. at 9 The mother appealed. The Superior Court affirmed the lower court and the case moved to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for consideration.
The Court considered arguments from both sides citing two cases concerning paternity, Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa., 741 A. 2d (1997) and Brinkley v. King 549 Pa., 701 A. 2d (1997). The Fish case determined limitations on presumption of paternity in cases of marriages that are not intact. The Brinkley case holds that a husband cannot deny parentage unless he can prove lack of access or an inability to produce children.
On page 19 and 20 of its decision, the Court stated that “we do not believe a court should dismiss a support claim against a purported father based on estoppel theory” rather, a court could consider genetic testing results and application of the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity. The Court considered the lower court’s thought of reconciliation possibilities unsustainable and that without the possibility of child support in a broken marriage, the child’s best interest must be served. In support of this notion, the Court’s decision, in remanding the case for further development, advised that suspected fathers testify and be subject to testing and recommended that a court appoint a guardian ad litem to look after the child’s best interests.
It could be expected that this decision will have family courts examining the financial status, father-child relationship and other aspects of a potential father. It is noteworthy that in the KEM opinion, on page 15, the Court seems to call for legislative action, stating that the “role of paternity by estoppel…in absence of definitive legislative involvement” apparently necessitated the Court having to rule on the matter.
Tags: presumption of paternity, child support, paternity by estoppel
No comments:
Post a Comment