Pa. Cons. Stat. » 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. (DECEDENTS) / Chapter 21
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2107 (2026)

  Persons born out of wedlock.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 2107.  Persons born out of wedlock.

(a)  Child of mother.--For purposes of descent by, from and through a person born out of wedlock, he shall be considered the child of his mother.

(b)  Marriage of parents.--(Deleted by amendment).

(c)  Child of father.--For purposes of descent by, from and through a person born out of wedlock, he shall be considered the child of his father when the identity of the father has been determined in any one of the following ways:

(1)  If the parents of a child born out of wedlock shall have married each other.

(2)  If during the lifetime of the child, the father openly holds out the child to be his and receives the child into his home, or openly holds the child out to be his and provides support for the child which shall be determined by clear and convincing evidence.

(3)  If there is clear and convincing evidence that the man was the father of the child, which may include a prior court determination of paternity.

(Nov. 26, 1978, P.L.1269, No.303, eff. imd.)

 

Cross References.  Section 2107 is referred to in sections 2514, 6114 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc., 819 A.2d 534 (Pa. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc., 819 A.2d 534 (Pa. 2003). · cites it 14× “In concluding that the mother was estopped from challenging the father's paternity under these circumstances, the Superior Court relied on 20 Pa.C.S. § 2107, which was enacted in 1978.”
In Re Adoption of S.A.J., 838 A.2d 616 (Pa. 2003). · cites it 2× “20 Pa.C.S. § 2107(c). The statute requires "clear and convincing evidence" of support and of paternity.”
Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988). “The statute itself permits a suit to be brought more than six years after the child’s birth if it is brought within two years of a support payment made by the father.”
PNC Bank Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 831 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “[13] 20 Pa.C.S. § 2107. [14] In Staudenmayer , Justice Newman noted that when dealing with the rebuttable presumption of common law marriage based upon cohabitation and reputation: [W]e question the utility of constant cohabitation as an element of that presumption.”
Rossa v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 839 A.2d 256 (Pa. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 5104 (authorizing the trial court to order blood tests to determine paternity and explaining how the tests may be used at trial); 20 Pa.C.S. § 2107 (providing that male may be deemed father of child born out of wedlock for purposes of intestacy decisions if there has been "a…”
Williams v. Milliken, 506 A.2d 918 (Pa. 1986). · cites it 4× “20 Pa.C.S. § 2107. In most instances in which § 2107 applies, one or both of the parents of the child whose lineage is questioned has died and is unable to testify to the paternity of the child; whereas a support action is ordinarily brought while both the natural mother and…”
RUTH F. v. Robert B., 690 A.2d 1171 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “" The Code also provided for three ways to determine the paternity of children born out of *429 wedlock, [16] which parallel the means for identifying the father when determining descent through the father for purposes of The Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S. §…”
Rossa v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Philadelphia), 794 A.2d 919 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “" Employer also quotes Section 2107 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S. § 2107, which for purposes of descent provides for the determination of the identity of a father of a child born out of wedlock in the same manner prescribed in 23 Pa.”
In Re Est. of Greenwood, 587 A.2d 749 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “For example, the intestacy statute, 20 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 2107(3) (1982), permits a child born out of wedlock to establish paternity as long as “there is clear and convincing evidence that the man was the father of the child.”
Clark v. Jeter, 518 A.2d 276 (Pa. 1986). “However, the state has not done this. For example, the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code includes no limitations on the time in which a child must establish paternity in order to inherit from the putative father.”
Fornwalt v. Follmer, 616 A.2d 1040 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). “For example, the intestacy statute, 20 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 2107(3) (1982), permits a child born out of wedlock to establish paternity as long as “there is clear and convincing evidence that the man was the father of the child.”
Morales ex rel. Morales v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 481 (3rd Cir. 1987). “The Pennsylvania intestate law that replaced the unconstitutional law allowed inheritance from both parents upon a showing of paternity, but contained a clause that explicitly prohibited retroactive application of the law.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2107(3) — 4 cases
In Re Est. of Greenwood, 587 A.2d 749 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “For example, the intestacy statute, 20 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 2107(3) (1982), permits a child born out of wedlock to establish paternity as long as “there is clear and convincing evidence that the man was the father of the child.”
Fornwalt v. Follmer, 616 A.2d 1040 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). “For example, the intestacy statute, 20 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 2107(3) (1982), permits a child born out of wedlock to establish paternity as long as “there is clear and convincing evidence that the man was the father of the child.”
Greenwood Est., 5 Pa. D. & C.4th 665 (1990).
Hunsinger v. Bussey, 18 Pa. D. & C.4th 627 (1993).
— 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2107(a) — 1 case
Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc., 819 A.2d 534 (Pa. 2003). “In concluding that the mother was estopped from challenging the father's paternity under these circumstances, the Superior Court relied on 20 Pa.C.S. § 2107, which was enacted in 1978.”
— 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2107(c) — 6 cases
In Re Adoption of S.A.J., 838 A.2d 616 (Pa. 2003). “20 Pa.C.S. § 2107(c). The statute requires "clear and convincing evidence" of support and of paternity.”
Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc., 819 A.2d 534 (Pa. 2003). “In concluding that the mother was estopped from challenging the father's paternity under these circumstances, the Superior Court relied on 20 Pa.C.S. § 2107, which was enacted in 1978.”
RUTH F. v. Robert B., 690 A.2d 1171 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). “" The Code also provided for three ways to determine the paternity of children born out of *429 wedlock, [16] which parallel the means for identifying the father when determining descent through the father for purposes of The Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S. §…”
Williams v. Milliken, 506 A.2d 918 (Pa. 1986). “20 Pa.C.S. § 2107. In most instances in which § 2107 applies, one or both of the parents of the child whose lineage is questioned has died and is unable to testify to the paternity of the child; whereas a support action is ordinarily brought while both the natural mother and…”
In re Est. of Brooks, 31 Pa. D. & C.5th 237 (2013).
— 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2107(c)(2) — 1 case
Sitler, S., Aplt. v. Jones, A. (Pa. 2025).
— 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2107(c)(3) — 1 case
Clark v. Jeter, 518 A.2d 276 (Pa. 1986). “However, the state has not done this. For example, the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code includes no limitations on the time in which a child must establish paternity in order to inherit from the putative father.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.