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...