New Twists In The Creeping Doctrine Of Paternity By Estoppel

Attorneys sometimes read appellate cases and wonders "why?" This is one such case; a case with any easy result made complicated and difficult for reasons not easily understood.

The facts of R.K.J. v. S.P.K. 2013 Pa. Super. 259 (9/26/13) are easily condensed. Man and woman have a multi-year relationship which borders upon marriage but that event never actually occurs. Along the way, a child is conceived and born even though the birth mother is still married to someone else. Because the relationship is "good" at the time the baby is born, the defendant goes to the hospital, participates in the birth and signs the proffered acknowledgment of paternity before mother and baby are discharged. He does so, even though he knows the child is not his. To this writer, the case is closed. Perhaps the man made a mistake but the one principle of law universally accepted even though not found in Purdon's or the body of judicial precedent is: "Don't sign anything unless you expect to be bound."

The facts get worse for this putative father. He and the mother continue their relationship and for the next six years he really does appear to play the role of father even though it appears someone else was the actual father.

The reader can guess the next part. Mother and "father" see their relationship disintegrate and mother decides to sue "father" for child support. The trial court decides the case on the principle of paternity by estoppel. The Superior Court affirms. The "father" asks the Supreme Court to review and they remand the case for consideration under their new decision in K.E.M.v. P.C.S.38 A.2d 3d 798 (2012)

Now, back in the trial court, the case starts to take on a surreal aspect. The Court appoints a psychologist to assess whether the defendant should be the father. The man renews a series of demands for blood tests, none of which is ever ordered. The psychologist renders an opinion that the child needs a father for all the reasons any layperson could figure out. The one reason that seems especially twisted is that since it is not clear who the real father may be, this man has an income and thus has the ability to support the child. So, voila the man is again declared to be "father" by estoppel even though the facts on which estoppel is traditionally based (e.g., written acknowledgment of paternity and in loco parentis conduct) seem to take a back seat to the psychological findings.

In olden days, paternity was decided based upon allegations of...