paternity by estoppel doctrine in Pennsylvania

2023In K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 614 Pa. 508 , 38 A.3d 798 (2012), our Supreme Court upheld the continued viability of the paternity by estoppel doctrine where the developed record demonstrates that doing so would serve the child’s best interests.

2023In K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 614 Pa. 508 , 38 A.3d 798 (2012), our Supreme Court upheld the continued viability of the paternity by estoppel doctrine where the developed record demonstrates that doing so would serve the child’s best interests.

2007N.C. v. M.H., supra. ¶ 21 Under the doctrine of paternity by estoppel, an individual may be “estopped from challenging paternity where that person has by his or her conduct accepted a given person as the father of the child.” Jones v. Trojak, 535 Pa. 95 , 634 A.2d 201, 206 (1993).

2007N.C. v. M.H., supra. ¶ 21 Under the doctrine of paternity by estoppel, an individual may be “estopped from challenging paternity where that person has by his or her conduct accepted a given person as the father of the child.” Jones v. Trojak, 535 Pa. 95 , 634 A.2d 201, 206 (1993).

2015See R.K.J. v. S.P.K., 77 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2013) (evidence supported application of doctrine of paternity by estoppel, for purposes of child support, such that purported father could not be permitted to deny parentage; unlike child’s biological father, who had no relationship with child and had never met him, purported father for child support purposes had held himself out as child’s father, lived with and interacted with child for nearly six years, told child he was child’s father, and supported child financially); see also Hamilton v. Hamilton, 795 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2002) (where father

2003See also Hamilton, supra. ¶ 11 Father’s final argument is a plea for this Court to follow what he calls the emerging trend in other jurisdictions with regard to the application of the doctrine of paternity by estoppel.

2025Forbes, A Multi- Factor Test Would Aid Paternity Decisions, 82 Pa.B.A.Q. 3, 118 (2011))); Brinkley, 701 A.2d at 253-54 (Nigro, J., concurring and dissenting) (“Abandoning the strict use of the [presumption of paternity and the doctrine of paternity by estoppel] would allow our courts to examine the situation presented, to compel blood testing if the appropriate showing is (continued…) [J-58-2024] - 17 The presumption of paternity has proven highly durable in Pennsylvania law.

1999As I explained in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241 , 701 A.2d 176 (1997), I believe that strictly applying the doctrine of paternity by estoppel, as the majority does here, leads to illogical and inequitable results.

2024See Ellison v. Lopez, 959 A.2d 395, 397-98 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“Under the doctrine of paternity by estoppel, a putative father who is not a child’s biological father is estopped from challenging paternity after he has held himself out as the child’s father or provided support.”); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 5102(b)(2).

2023Thus, K.E.M. is distinguishable.” Hortman, supra at 29-30 (citing Ellison v. Lopez, 959 A.2d 395 , 398 (Pa.Super. 2008) for proposition that even where father/child relationship has been established, evidence of fraud may preclude application of doctrine of paternity by estoppel).

1995Recognizing that that presumption does not apply to this case, N.E.E. and M.C.E. argue instead that this case should be determined according to the doctrine of paternity by estoppel. “[PJrinciples of estoppel are peculiarly suited to cases where the child is conceived out of wedlock and no presumptions of paternity apply.” Jefferson v. Perry, 432 Pa.Super. 651, 656 , 639 A.2d 830, 833 (1994).

1995Recognizing that that presumption does not apply to this case, N.E.E. and M.C.E. argue instead that this case should be determined according to the doctrine of paternity by estoppel. “[PJrinciples of estoppel are peculiarly suited to cases where the child is conceived out of wedlock and no presumptions of paternity apply.” Jefferson v. Perry, 432 Pa.Super. 651, 656 , 639 A.2d 830, 833 (1994).

2023In K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 614 Pa. 508 , 38 A.3d 798 (2012), our Supreme Court upheld the continued viability of the paternity by estoppel doctrine where the developed record demonstrates that doing so would serve the child’s best interests.

2023In K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 614 Pa. 508 , 38 A.3d 798 (2012), our Supreme Court upheld the continued viability of the paternity by estoppel doctrine where the developed record demonstrates that doing so would serve the child’s best interests.

1995“In simplistic terms, the doctrine [of equitable estoppel upon which paternity by estoppel is based] is one of fundamental fairness such that it prevents a party from taking a position that is inconsistent to a position previously taken and thus disadvantageous to the other party.” In re Estate of Simmons-Carton, 434 Pa.Super. 641, 654 , 644 A.2d 791, 798 (1994).

1995“In simplistic terms, the doctrine [of equitable estoppel upon which paternity by estoppel is based] is one of fundamental fairness such that it prevents a party from taking a position that is inconsistent to a position previously taken and thus disadvantageous to the other party.” In re Estate of Simmons-Carton, 434 Pa.Super. 641, 654 , 644 A.2d 791, 798 (1994).

2007Id. at 529-30 , 741 A.2d at 724 . ¶ 17 As the above cases make clear, whether a court invokes paternity by es-toppel can turn on small details of fact specific to a given set of circumstances. 3 ¶ 18 In the case sub judice, Appellant’s first two issues are challenges to the trial court’s determination that neither the presumption of paternity nor the doctrine of paternity by estoppel apply to the facts presented.

2007Id. at 529-30 , 741 A.2d at 724 . ¶ 17 As the above cases make clear, whether a court invokes paternity by es-toppel can turn on small details of fact specific to a given set of circumstances. 3 ¶ 18 In the case sub judice, Appellant’s first two issues are challenges to the trial court’s determination that neither the presumption of paternity nor the doctrine of paternity by estoppel apply to the facts presented.

2017R.K.J., 77 A.3d at 38 . -5- J-S91027-16 Father claims that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it found that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel did not apply where R.C. and his family raised the child during the early years of her life.

2015The matter has been expanded, however, by the courts’ decisions in KEM v. PCS, 38 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2012), and RKJ v. SPK, 77 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2013), wherein the courts have applied the doctrine of paternity by estoppel “only where it can be shown, on a developed record, that it is in the best interests of the involved child.” 1 The court will thus address the best interests of ARK in deciding whether genetic testing should be ordered in spite of the acknowledgment. 2 In the instant case, plaintiff testified that the parties had dated once for two months “years prior” and began dating again rec

2024In Vargo v. Schwartz, 940 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 2007), our Court explained the doctrine of paternity by estoppel: Estoppel in paternity actions is a legal determination based on the conduct of the mother and/or the putative father with regard to the child, e.g., holding out the child to the community as a product of their marriage and/or supporting the child.

2023See Vargo, supra. Nevertheless, the trial court applied the doctrine of paternity by estoppel, reasoning that it is “beyond any doubt that [Child’s] future life would be better if [Appellant] were to remain as her legal father.” (Trial Court Opinion at 19).

2008As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at ‘achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.’ Wieland v. Wieland, 948 A.2d 863, 869 (Pa.Super.2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, 1076 (Pa.Super.2003)). ¶ 25 The doctrine of paternity by estoppel has been applied by courts to prevent putative fathers who hold themselves out as the fathers of their children from subsequently denying their parentage.

2008As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at ‘achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.’ Wieland v. Wieland, 948 A.2d 863, 869 (Pa.Super.2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, 1076 (Pa.Super.2003)). ¶ 25 The doctrine of paternity by estoppel has been applied by courts to prevent putative fathers who hold themselves out as the fathers of their children from subsequently denying their parentage.

2008As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at ‘achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.’ Wieland v. Wieland, 948 A.2d 863, 869 (Pa.Super.2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, 1076 (Pa.Super.2003)). ¶ 25 The doctrine of paternity by estoppel has been applied by courts to prevent putative fathers who hold themselves out as the fathers of their children from subsequently denying their parentage.

2008As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of es-toppel in paternity actions is aimed at ‘achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding paternity of the child.’ Wieland v. Wieland, 948 A.2d 863, 869 (Pa.Super.2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Warfield v. Warfield, 815 A.2d 1073, 1076 (Pa.Super.2003)). ¶ 25 The doctrine of paternity by estoppel has been applied by courts to prevent putative fathers who hold themselves out as the fathers of their children from subsequently denying their parentage.

2008See Conroy v. Rosenwald, 940 A.2d 409 (Pa.Super.2007); Weidman v. Weidman, 808 A.2d 576 (Pa.Super.2002).

2008See Conroy v. Rosenwald, 940 A.2d 409 (Pa.Super.2007); Weidman v. Weidman, 808 A.2d 576 (Pa.Super.2002).

2007The paternity by estoppel doctrine provides that, “because of a person’s conduct (e.g., holding out the child as his own, or supporting the child), that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will the child’s mother who has participated in this conduct be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the true father.” Freedman, 539 Pa. at 591 , 654 A.2d at 532-33 . (footnote omitted) Evidence of fraud is relevant, and can preclude application of the estoppel doctrine.

2007The paternity by estoppel doctrine provides that, “because of a person’s conduct (e.g., holding out the child as his own, or supporting the child), that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will the child’s mother who has participated in this conduct be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the true father.” Freedman, 539 Pa. at 591 , 654 A.2d at 532-33 . (footnote omitted) Evidence of fraud is relevant, and can preclude application of the estoppel doctrine.

2016See also T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“This Court accepts immediate appeals from orders directing or denying genetic testing to determine paternity.”). -2- J-A31025-15 On appeal, Mother argues that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel should apply in this case, thus precluding paternity testing under section 5104.3 Paternity by estoppel “is merely the legal determination that because of a person’s conduct (e.g., holding the child out as his own or supporting the child), that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage [.]” B.K

2016See also T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“This Court accepts immediate appeals from orders directing or denying genetic testing to determine paternity.”). -2- J-A31025-15 On appeal, Mother argues that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel should apply in this case, thus precluding paternity testing under section 5104.3 Paternity by estoppel “is merely the legal determination that because of a person’s conduct (e.g., holding the child out as his own or supporting the child), that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage [.]” B.K

2023As we observed in explaining the roots of the related doctrine of paternity by estoppel, “In simplistic terms, the doctrine of equitable estoppel upon which paternity by estoppel is based is one of fundamental fairness such that it prevents a party from taking a position that is inconsistent to a position previously taken and thus disadvantageous to the other party.” See C.T.D. v. N.E.E, 62, 653 A.2d 28 , 31 (Pa.Super. 1995) (cleaned up).

2023As we observed in explaining the roots of the related doctrine of paternity by estoppel, “In simplistic terms, the doctrine of equitable estoppel upon which paternity by estoppel is based is one of fundamental fairness such that it prevents a party from taking a position that is inconsistent to a position previously taken and thus disadvantageous to the other party.” See C.T.D. v. N.E.E, 62, 653 A.2d 28, 31 (Pa.Super. 1995) (cleaned up).

2017See Kohler v. Bleem, 654 A.2d 569 , 574 n.7 (Pa.Super. 1995) (“The General Assembly has codified the principles of paternity by estoppel in cases involving children born out of wedlock.

2003He relies principally on Jefferson v. Perry, 432 Pa.Super. 651 , 639 A.2d 830 (1994) and Kohler v. Bleem, 439 Pa.Super. 385 , 654 A.2d 569 (1995), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 652 , 664 A.2d 541 (1995).

2016See also T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“This Court accepts immediate appeals from orders directing or denying genetic testing to determine paternity.”). -2- J-A31025-15 On appeal, Mother argues that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel should apply in this case, thus precluding paternity testing under section 5104.3 Paternity by estoppel “is merely the legal determination that because of a person’s conduct (e.g., holding the child out as his own or supporting the child), that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage [.]” B.K

2008Citing Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc., 572 Pa. 675 , 819 A.2d 534, 539 (2003), Presley points out that the paternity by estoppel doctrine is designed to protect the best interests of the children and allow them “to be secure in knowing who their parents are,” and that “[w]here estoppel is operative, ‘blood tests may be irrelevant, for the law will not permit a person in these situations to challenge the status which he or she has previously accepted.’ ” Presley’s brief at 12 (quoting T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358, 363 (Pa.Super.2002)). ¶ 11 Then, citing Moyer v. Gresh, 904 A.2d 958 (Pa.Super.200

2015See R.K.J. v. S.P.K., 77 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2013) (evidence supported application of doctrine of paternity by estoppel, for purposes of child support, such that purported father could not be permitted to deny parentage; unlike child’s biological father, who had no relationship with child and had never met him, purported father for child support purposes had held himself out as child’s father, lived with and interacted with child for nearly six years, told child he was child’s father, and supported child financially); see also Hamilton v. Hamilton, 795 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2002) (where father

2008Id. ¶ 10 In Doran, supra, we discussed the doctrine of paternity by estoppel: [It] is merely the legal determination that because of a person's conduct (e.g., holding out the child as his own, or supporting the child) that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will the child's mother who has participated in this conduct be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the true father *713 . . . [T]he doctrine . . . is aimed at achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father

2008Id. ¶ 10 In Doran, supra, we discussed the doctrine of paternity by estoppel: [It] is merely the legal determination that because of a person's conduct (e.g., holding out the child as his own, or supporting the child) that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will the child's mother who has participated in this conduct be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the true father *713 . . . [T]he doctrine . . . is aimed at achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father

2008Id. ¶ 10 In Doran, supra, we discussed the doctrine of paternity by estoppel: [It] is merely the legal determination that because of a person’s conduct (e.g., holding out the child as his own, or supporting the child) that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will the child’s mother who has participated in this conduct be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the true father ... [T]he doctrine ... is aimed at achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to thei

2025Our Supreme Court has applied the equitable doctrine of paternity by estoppel to bar a putative father from asserting paternity “where [the putative father had] denied his paternity, never held himself out to be father, and never took responsibility, financial or otherwise, for [the c]hild.” In re Adoption of S.A.J., 838 A.2d 616, 625 (Pa. 2003).

2008Citing Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc., 572 Pa. 675 , 819 A.2d 534, 539 (2003), Presley points out that the paternity by estoppel doctrine is designed to protect the best interests of the children and allow them “to be secure in knowing who their parents are,” and that “[w]here estoppel is operative, ‘blood tests may be irrelevant, for the law will not permit a person in these situations to challenge the status which he or she has previously accepted.’ ” Presley’s brief at 12 (quoting T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358, 363 (Pa.Super.2002)). ¶ 11 Then, citing Moyer v. Gresh, 904 A.2d 958 (Pa.Super.200

2016See also T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“This Court accepts immediate appeals from orders directing or denying genetic testing to determine paternity.”). -2- J-A31025-15 On appeal, Mother argues that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel should apply in this case, thus precluding paternity testing under section 5104.3 Paternity by estoppel “is merely the legal determination that because of a person’s conduct (e.g., holding the child out as his own or supporting the child), that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage [.]” B.K

2016See also T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“This Court accepts immediate appeals from orders directing or denying genetic testing to determine paternity.”). -2- J-A31025-15 On appeal, Mother argues that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel should apply in this case, thus precluding paternity testing under section 5104.3 Paternity by estoppel “is merely the legal determination that because of a person’s conduct (e.g., holding the child out as his own or supporting the child), that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage [.]” B.K

2007J.C. v. J.S., 826 A.2d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2006The trial court, citing J.C. v. J.S., 826 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super.2003) and Doran v. Doran, 820 A.2d 1279 (Pa.Super.2003), acknowledges that evidence of fraud is relevant to the court’s equitable estoppel analysis.

2025See Trojak, 634 A.2d at 206 . 39 See Strauser v. Stahr, 726 A.2d 1052, 1054 (Pa. 1999) (“[I]n one particular situation, no amount of evidence can overcome the presumption: where the family (mother, child, and husband/presumptive father) remains intact at the time that the husband’s paternity is challenged, the presumption is irrebuttable.”); B.C. v. C.P., 310 A.3d at 735 (“[T]here is a single circumstance under which the presumption of paternity continues to apply, and, indeed, is irrebuttable—where there is an intact marriage to preserve.”). [J-58-2024] - 10 is intact, the presumption applies