Feeds:
Posts
Comments

It’s official:  the federal court ruling legalizing same-sex-marriage in Pennsylvania will not be appealed by Pennsylvania’s governor.   Let’s take a look at the winners and losers.

image4

 

 

 

 

WINNERS

Loving, Same-Sex Couples

The obvious winners are same sex couples in PA whose union could not be fully recognized in their home state…until now.

Students of History and Government

This is an exciting time in PA.  Marriage is the oldest and most important institution in society.   The institution of marriage predates the Roman Empire.  The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia.

Suddenly, in PA, the definition of marriage has changed.  Just like that.

Also exciting is how the change relates to our special form of government in the USA.  Students of political science are taught about how some governments see freedom as self-evident and independent from the state.  In the United States, our government recognizes certain basic rights.  Such rights do not come the government, or even from God.  Rather, these basic and inalienable rights come from the power of reason, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, a profoundly religious person whose philosophical work heavily influenced Western government.  Saint Thomas Aquinas saw God as the source of our ability to reason, but he took God out of the equation when evaluating natural law, or the origin of basic rights.  He  believed:

Law is a dictate of reason from the ruler for the community he rules. This dictate of reason is first and foremost within the reason or intellect of the ruler.

Consider at the alternative, or the absence of natural law.  For example, the Constitution of the Soviet Union was 100+ pages.  It read like a beautiful and flowing declaration of freedoms.  It was more broad in scope than the United States Constitution, which, in comparison, is only 15 pages long.  But in the Soviet Union, the extensive description of  “rights” had been granted.   Soviet Russia reserved the right to take those rights away.

But now, in Pennsylvania, the right to same sex marriage is recognized. Whether one agrees with same sex marriage or not, it is pretty amazing how we arrived at this point.

Divorce Lawyers

Divorce law is big business, which is always booming.  When the economy grows, people can suddenly “afford” to get divorced.  When the economy suffers, people fight over money and… get divorced.    It’s a win-win for divorce lawyers.  But don’t resent family law attorneys.  On a daily basis, family law attorneys apply their intelligence, training, and experience to bring sanity and organization to the lives of people going through the toughest of times.  Divorce attorneys regularly see peoples’ darkest emotions:  the stuff that moves people (in some instances) to hide substantial assets from a spouse who will starve otherwise or use an innocent child as a pawn for leverage in litigation.

Family law attorneys earn every penny they take home.

And now, with same sex marriage in PA, there will be more pennies.

With the right to marry comes the need for premarital agreements and post-marital agreements.  With the right to marry comes the right to divorce, and seek spousal support and /or alimony.  Such rights never existed before in the gay and lesbian community in PA.  Thus, it would behoove many people to turn to a lawyer for representation or at least a consultation regarding family law.

As an interesting side note, on the day when same sex marriage was legalized in PA, a divorce law attorney friend of mine was attending a CLE (continuing legal education course) on gay and lesbian co-habitation agreements.  Prior to same sex marriage in PA, the main way for couples living together to organize their rights together was via a cohabitation agreement and through trusts.   That day, during the CLE class, news streamed across the CLE attendees’ smart phones:  same sex marriage is legal in PA!.  With that, the CLE (regarding cohabitation agreements and trusts in lieu of marriage) became almost irrelevant.

The Legal System

When people think of “law,” they think of lawyers and clients.  But hey, what about he sweat equity invested by judges and judicial employees, such as law clerks, who work hard to resolve disputes…before they run home at 4:30, at least.

Just kidding, judges and law clerks! (mostly)

Seriously,  judges and law clerks are people, too.  They do work hard.  Try being a judge tasked with the chore of dividing the shared and combined assets of two people are not married.   That particular task involves a cumbersome and time consuming process called an Action in Partition, requiring a judge (without the assistance of a jury) to hear detailed evidence and draft something called a decree nisi. (A what?  Yes, exactly.)  There are few (if any) judges who specialize in partition actions as a sole focus of their docket.  Such actions are time consuming, uncommon, and the courts necessarily struggle with the process.

An action for divorce, on the other hand, triggers a division of the courts dedicated to family law.  There, the judges and rules are focused on divorce and the process of  orderly dividing marital assets relative to tried and true case law and legislative authority in PA dedicated to this area of law.   Added to that, there are lawyers who specialize in family law and who can advise clients about the likely outcomes based on said attorneys’ experience with the specific judge assigned to the case.  The legal process is not perfect, but it is reasonably predictable in terms of the amount of time and money it will take to bring a case to a resolution.  Take it from former judicial law clerk for a judge handling partition actions:  any reduction in the need for cumbersome actions in partition will breath a sign of relief in the judicial system.

LOSERS

Certain Politicians.  Gay marriage has taken American — and politicians — by storm.  Most if not all politicians (Democrat and Republicans alike) were against same sex marriage, until recently, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and the current President of the United States, Barack Obama.

The politicians struggle to define their stances.  Hillary Clinton’s explanation to Terry Gross on NPR left lots to be desired.  Perhaps the simplest explanation is, look, marriage comes from society, not the government.  The government only recognizes how society defines marriage.  Imagine if the government tired to ban all marriage, or if it tried to define it as a man and three men.   Society would not except either of those scenarios.  In the latter scenario, even if a state allowed a man to marry three men, chances are, once that made and his new spouses were to return home, their neighbor would not treat them as married, and that’s the point:  it’s society that defines marriage.

Society (not government) defines marriage.  Regardless of the type of government involved, government only recognizes society’s definition of marriage.  Imagine if Soviet Russia tried to outlaw all marriage.   The government would become irrelevant.  In the USA, the government runs the same risk, regarding gay marriage, albeit on a much smaller (but significant) scale.

In the USA, society has evolved pretty quickly on the same-sex marriage front.  Hence, the government scrambled and caught up, but that’s OK.  That’s how it’s supposed to be.

Going forward, politicians have certain decisions to make.  The same-sex marriage issue will work against all politicians who changed their stance on this, or who still want to outlaw it.   Plus, there are many other, really important issues out there right now: health care, the national debt (17 trillion), the economy, our standing in the world, terrorism, challenges from China and Russia, and more.  The religious right is entitled to its views, but why make the party’s other goals suffer?

At this point, the issue will only serve to anger same-sex voters and those friendly to same-sex voters, which will serve as a distraction from other GOP values:  smaller government, individual responsibility, market freedoms, etc. Politics is the allocation of values, but the public sentiment has already shifted. There are no values to “allocate” in the realm of same sex marriage.  There is nothing for the legislative process to decide, meaningfully.

Same Sex Couples Who Marry For the Wrong Reason.   Don’t marry to be a part of history.  Just because you can marry, doesn’t mean you should.  With every new right comes responsibility.

Keep it simple:  marry for the right reasons.  Call any time:

Use Our Simple Contact Form 

 

PFA - couple in white roomNo one enters into a marriage expecting it to result in divorce.  That said, greater than twenty % of first marriages end in divorce within five years, and 48 percent of marriages end by the 20-year point.  This is according to 2006-2010 data from the government’s National Survey of Family Growth. Separation and divorce are emotionally difficult events, but it is possible to have a healthy breakup.

Cooperation, communication and mediation

You will like feel a flood of emotions from the end of a marriage.  These include anger, grief, anxiety and fear.  At times, these feelings will surface when you least expect it.  This is normal.  You will notice that the intensity of these feelings will subside. In the meantime, be kind to yourself.  Psychologists have discovered that people who are kind and compassionate to themselves have an easier time managing the day-to-day difficulties of divorce.

Try not to think of the divorce as a battle. Divorce mediation is often a good alternative to courtroom proceedings. Trying to resolve  things can be frustrating and self-defeating as the problems that contributed to your divorce are likely to re-emerge during divorce negotiations. Research shows that mediation can be beneficial for emotional satisfaction, spousal relationships and children’s needs.

Sitting down and speaking with your soon-to-be-ex-spouse may be the last thing you want to do, but cooperation and communication make divorce healthier for everyone involved.  Talking to a psychologist or other type of counselor can help you get your thoughts out in the open, and help you organize your thoughts.

When kids are involved

Divorce can be a traumatic experience for children, but research suggests that most children adjust well within two years following the divorce; on the other hand, children often experience more problems when parents remain in high-conflict marriages instead of splitting up. During a divorce, parents can do a lot to ease the child’s transition. Do your best to keep any conflict away from the kids. Ongoing parental conflict increases kids’ risk of psychological and social problems.

It’s often helpful for divorcing parents to come up with a strategy and present it to their children together. And, keep the lines of communication open. Kids benefit from having honest conversations about the changes their family is experiencing.

In many cases, sudden change can be hard on children. If appropriate, give them a few weeks’ notice before moving them to a new home, or before one spouse moves out.  You may benefit from minimizing changes as much as possible in the months and years following a divorce.

Children do better when they maintain close contact with both parents. Research suggests that kids who have a poor relationship with one or both parents may have a harder time dealing with family upheaval. Parent education programs that focus on improving the relationship between parents and their kids have been shown to help children cope better in the months and years following the divorce.

Taking care of your needs

The changes brought on by separation and divorce can be overwhelming. But now more than ever, it’s important to take care of yourself.  Lean on your support network, turning to family and friends for assistance and comfort. Formal support groups can also help you cope with the many emotions of a marriage ending.

To stay positive as you start a new chapter, try getting involved in activities you used to love but haven’t done in a while. Or try new hobbies and activities. Stay physically healthy by eating right and getting exercise.

How psychologists can help

Divorce is a challenging time for the entire family. Divorcing parents and their children can benefit from speaking to a counselor or psychologist to help them deal with their emotions and adjust to the changes. A psychologist can also help you think carefully about what went wrong in your marriage.  This can help you avoid repeating any negative patterns in your subsequent relationship.

The above appears in writings from the American Psychological Association.

For more, http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

Other advice:

Call Today!

412.780.0008

Please note we are only accepting new cases that involve PFA defense, at this time.

Or Use Our Simple Contact Form 

 

Pennsylvania experimented with the use of a parental coordinator in custody cases, as you may recall from a prior post on this site  That is to say, in PA, a judge could appoint a parental coordinator to enforce a custody order or handle the process of making modifications to it.

Good Law?   

Long story short, in 2013, Pennsylvania ended its experiment with the use of parental coordinators.  This was made official via the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adoption of Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.11-1.  Pursuant to the new rule, only judges may make decisions in child custody cases, which also includes hearing officers/masters.  Thus, the courts may not appoint any other person to render decisions or recommendations or alter a custody order in child custody cases.  Moreover, effective May 23, 2013, all existing orders appointing Parental Coordinators were vacated.

Why The New Rule?

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had a concern with recent controversies in 2 different counties concerning juvenile placement and guardians ad litem.

The Consequences:  A Good Thing? 

It depends on whom you ask.   Many Judges like the idea of delegating duties to a parental coordinator.  Certain family law attorneys viewed the program as having value as an important bridge between the parties, lawyers, and the courts.  An argument could be made that the program should have been tweaked, but not dismantled.    Regardless, abolishing the program will favors transparency and add to more direct accountability for decisions in child custody court.

Call Today!

412.780.0008

Or Use Our Simple Contact Form 

What is a “parenting coordinator”?

A parenting coordinator is a person appointed by the judge in custody cases to help execute and coordinate ancillary issues of a custody order.  This helps ease the burden of the trial judge in dealing with the day to day aspects of implementing a custody order.  Parenting coordination has become a significant area of law in Pennsylvania child custody.  One concern is the following:   Is the appointment of a “parenting coordinator” the improper delegation of judicial decision-making authority?   Another issue is this:  what about the requisite credentials of the parenting coordinator?  Should that person be an attorney?  A mental health professional? 

One of the leading cases in this area is Yates v. Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008). There, the appellate court (the Superior Court) ruled that a trial court may appoint a parenting coordinator in cases with high-conflict parents who have demonstrated difficulty in rendering parental decisions independently.  There, the appellate court also constricted the parenting coordinator’s authority to side issues and not central matters such as legal and physical custody decisions. The Yates court also decided that a de novo review of a parenting coordinator’s decision must be utilized if either party disagrees with the parenting coordinator’s decision.

Recently, in the case of A.H. v. C.M., __ A.3d __, 2012 PA Super. 277 (December 18, 2012), the Superior Court once again addressed the requirement of a de novo review of a parenting coordinator’s decision.  There, the appellate court decided that the trial court erred in failing to hold a deno hearing on the mother’s petition to review the parenting coordinator’s decision.

On appeal, the Superior Court in the A.H. case held that the trial court erred in failing to hold a de novo hearing on C.M.’s (the mother’s) petition to review the parenting coordinator’s decision.

As one attorney, Micheal E. Bertin, noted:

 “[A.H. v. C.M.] is important for family law practitioners as it provides further guidance on the issue of parenting coordination. There exists a proposed rule of civil procedure permitting a judge to appoint parenting coordinators at any time after a custody order has been entered. The proposed rule mandates a de novo review of the parenting coordinator’s rulings if the party seeks review of the same. In the past, there was also proposed legislation that was on the other end of the spectrum and provided, in part, “a judge of a Court of Common Pleas shall have no authority to appoint a parenting coordinator in an action involving custody of a child. Any decision rendered by a parenting coordinator shall be void.” The proposed legislation was never enacted and the proposed rule has not been promulgated. Therefore, the current law regarding parenting coordinators remains the holding in the Yates decision and the Superior Court’s affirmation and reiteration of the mandates contained in the Yates decision as reflected in the recent case of A.H.”

Contact our Pittsburgh lawyers any time for a free consultation about this matter, or any other issue involving custody, support, divorce, of PFA.

Call any time.

412.780.0008

Email us directly:  info@divorce-custody-support-PFA.com

 

Nothing says “I love you” like a restraining order, or at least, that’s the title of a song by post-hardcore band Our Last Night. All kidding aside, a restraining order – a/k/a Protection From Abuse Act Order (“PFA”) – is serious business.

No level of abuse should be tolerated.  Any amount of abuse is too much.   For this reason, the Pennsylvania legislature created the concept of a PFA, which creates an immediate right to have a person tossed in jail, if he violates either the temporary or “permanent” PFA.

A PFA can save a person’s life.

Unfortunately, abuse can go both ways.  It is not uncommon for the PFA procedures in PA to be abused by those looking to go on the offense against a current (or former lover) or family member when no “abuse” or fear of abuse ever existed.  So long as a person is willing to testify that another person (related by blood, prior sexual relations, or affinity) was physically abused or made serious threats, the entry of a PFA order is a near certainty unless the party defending the action has some pretty reliable evidence to the contrary.  This is the case mostly because the courts err on the side of separating the parties and entering a PFA.

Meeting the threshold amount of evidence to obtain a PFA is easy for those willing to distort the truth.  The term “abuse” is defined pretty liberally in the PFA statute:

23 Pa.C.S. § 6102 (2012)

§ 6102. Definitions.

(a) General rule. –The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

“Abuse.” –The occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members, sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood:

(1) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury, serious bodily injury, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault or incest with or without a deadly weapon.

(2) Placing another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

(3) The infliction of false imprisonment pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 2903 (relating to false imprisonment).

(4) Physically or sexually abusing minor children, including such terms as defined in Chapter 63 (relating to child protective services).

(5) Knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts toward another person, including following the person, without proper authority, under circumstances which place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. The definition of this paragraph applies only to proceedings commenced under this title and is inapplicable to any criminal prosecutions commenced under Title 18 (relating to crimes and offenses). (Emphasis added).

As you can see, a PFA can be warranted where no physical harm results.  Rather, an “attempt” to cause “fear” is enough.  The definition is broad enough to include stalking or repeated interaction, which could mean having coffee at the same Starbucks as the Plaintiff, by chance or routine, every day, or driving past the plaintiff’s home if it’s on the defendant’s way to work every day, so long as that puts the plaintiff in “fear.”  (Do you see how this well-meaning statute can be abused?)

The blind entry of a PFA can cause enormous prejudice to the defendant, who may have been innocent of any wrongdoing.  A PFA can be used to wreak the following on an innocent person, who may face one or all of the following through an improper PFA:

    • Immediate eviction from his residence with the Plaintiff
    • Loss of freedom to travel down a street where the Plaintiff lives, even if it’s on the defendant’s way to work
    • Loss of the right to possess firearms even if the Defendant is and avid gun collector or merchant of weapons for a living
    • An order for child support even though no formal claim for support had been filed through the family courts
    • The court costs of the PFA (over $200),
    • The PFA can be served on the Defendant by sheriff or constable when the defendant is at work, ruining his reputation;
    • The PFA can be used for leverage in any custody, divorce, or support proceedings, and
    • The court may impose other relief that the court deems fair and just.
A PFA also creates a mark on a person’s permanent and public record.  Although a PFA does not create a criminal record per se (unless one violates the PFA and is found guilty of indirect criminal contempt), a PFA does appear on the civil docket as a finding of abuse, which the world can see, because the civil docket is public record.

Most employers only search one’s criminal records via the state police website, but some also check the civil dockets for blemishes.  We know for sure that those applying for section 8 housing will be subject to a search of PFA instances.

It is possible to have a temporary PFA expunged from the civil docket (which based on only one party’s side of the story, also called ex parte), but not a permanent PFA.  This is because, expungement applies to the removal of charges and accusations, not actual findings of fact related to a full hearing where all parties may attend.  Thus, if you are found to be an abuser following a hearing where you had a chance to testify, that record cannot be removed.  Thus, to be clear, if you go to court on the PFA and lose such that it becomes permanent, then the permanent PFA cannot be expunged.  An excellent analysis of this concept appears in a blog by Linda A. Kerns, who practices in Eastern PA. 

For these reason, if you have had a PFA served on you, you should immediately seek experienced counsel to defend the action or get the opposing party to accept some deal short of permanent PFA.   We get at least one call a month from some poor, unfortunate individual who decided to attend the hearing on the PFA alone (or with a family “friend” attorney who doesn’t handle these cases regularly) and came away from the process with a 3 year PFA against him.

Also keep in mind that, if you go to a hearing and lose, the PFA order is not the only public record, but rather, the testimony against you is also recorded and a transcript of the same can be ordered by anyone with a beef against you, so he or she can read about all the different forms of abuse according to at least one witness  under oath.

We strongly recommend that you seek experienced counsel in defending against any PFA action. Out East, consider Linda A. Kerns, Esquire, who wrote about whether a PFA can be expunged. In Harrisburg and Millersburg, consider Shaffer & Engle, which did a nice analysis of “bad faith PFA“s on their blog.  For all matters in Western PA including Pittsburgh (and all of Allegheny County and the surrounding Counties – Beaver, Butler, Washington, consider our Pittsburgh PFA lawyers.

Call or email our law firm any time for a free consultation.

412.780.0008

Or Use Our Simple Contact Form 

 

 

_________________________________

PFA - couple in white room

At the end of 2011, the custody laws in Pennsylvania were changed.  The courts still look at the best interest of the child above all.   Interestingly, however, Section 5328 of the new legislation sets forth 15 factors that a court must consider when awarding custody.

We practice in Western PA.  Out in Eastern PA, the law firm of Karen Ann Ulmer, PC (“Eastern PA”) was among the first to blog about this and set forth the 15 factors as follows:

(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party.
(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party’s household, whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child.
(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.
(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life.
(5) The availability of extended family.
(6) The child’s sibling relationships.
(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child’s maturity and judgment.
(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm.
(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child’s emotional needs.
(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child.
(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.
(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.
(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.
(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party’s household.
(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party’s household.
Section 5323 provides that the court must detail the reasons for its decision either on the record in open court or in a written opinion. Therefore, the court must go through each factor that it considered and explain why it decided as it did. So far, the Superior Court has been strict in upholding this requirement. In J.R.M. v. J.E.A., the court awarded primary custody to the mother and father appealed on the basis that the trial court did not consider the 16 factors listed in Section 5328. 2011 Pa Super 263 (2011). The Superior Court granted the appeal, finding that the trial court did not properly consider the factors listed in the statute. Accordingly, all parties in a custody action should be prepared to argue on all of the relevant factors and also ensure that the court addresses all relevant factors in their decision.

Eastern PA aptly noted:

“Section 5323 provides that the court must detail the reasons for its decision either on the record in open court or in a written opinion. Therefore, the court must go through each factor that it considered and explain why it decided as it did. So far, the Superior Court has been strict in upholding this requirement.”

Great post, Eastern PA!

With questions, call us any time.

412.780.0008

Use an Easy Contact Form

Pennsylvania has long clung to the presumption of paternity by estoppel, which means simply:  if you hold yourself out as the parent, you are the parent, even if you are not the biological parent.  Under this fiction, DNA evidence is not admissible.  Some states are moving away from this somewhat archaic presumption.    In the holding of K.E.M. v. P.C.S., No. 67 MAP 2011, 2012 WL 573635 (Pa. Feb. 21, 2012), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently declined an opportunity to do away with the presumption entirely, but it did add one ripple: the courts must look at the best interest of the child when applying the presumption of paternity by estoppel.  There, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania deemed that paternity in Pennsylvania by estoppel will continue in this Commonwealth.  There, the biological mother acknowledged that she had an extramarital affair with the alleged father during the course of her marriage to her husband. Testing did establish that her husband was not the biological father of the child.

The alleged biological father asserted paternity by estoppel to defeat the child support claim and argued that the husband had established the father relationship with the child, adding that his involvement in the child’s life had been insignificant. Also, the mother and her husband remained married even though they were separated.

The alleged father maintained that he has little involvement in the child’s life and that the mother remained married to her husband, though separated.  This prompted the lower court and Superior Court to grant his motion to dismiss the support action against him.  The husband remained responsible for the child’s support.  But then the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had a look and reversed the lower court’s decision.  Specifically the Supreme Court remanded to the lower court for proceedings with the following directive:  the purpose of paternity by estoppel is to keep families intact and protect the best interests of the child. It was then up to the lower court to evaluate the best interest of the child based on a new evidentiary hearing.   This left in tact the doctrine of paternity by estoppel but it must be supported by a consideration of the best interest of the child.

Before this new provision in the law, the party seeking to challenge an order to pay child support based on paternity by estoppel could defend on two grounds:  (1) show that he did not hold himself out as the parent; or (2) show that he relied on the other parent’s false and fraudulent claim that he was the biological father, when he was not.  This issue came up a few years ago in a case that was litigated in Allegheny County before the Honorable Judge Wetch and appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.  The case was also profiled in the New York Times.

In that case, the mother was married to her husband, Mike, when she had a child (“L”) with another man, Rob.  Her husband held himself out as the child’s father even though he knew he was not, eventually, and claimed that he had only done so because his wife had lied and told him was, in fact, the biological father.

This is how the New York Times described the case:

The real issue, her attorney, Todd Elliott, told the court, was that Mike didn’t really want to stop being L.’s father.  ‘Every time he was given a chance to deny paternity, he never did,’ Elliott said, according to the transcript. ‘He signed consent order after consent order because he wanted to be the father. The testimony here today is that he only did it because of some philanthropic belief that he wanted to step up. That’s not true. . . . He fought for every other weekend. He fought for having her overnight on a Wednesday. He fought for having her not be able to leave the jurisdiction. These aren’t things that someone does because they are just philanthropic. He wants to be the dad; he just doesn’t want to pay support.’ Elliott’s accusation infuriated Mike, who believed it accurately described Rob, not him.

The hearing officer was persuaded by Elliott’s argument: Mike hadn’t been defrauded into admitting paternity after the DNA tests, and he had hardly abandoned L. after he learned the truth. Still, the officer ruled, Rob had also acted “essentially as a parent.” During the hearing, Stephanie testified that Rob was the biological father, and that he and L. loved each other. He had taken her on vacations to Disney World, Las Vegas and the ocean, celebrated at her birthday parties, bought her gifts and attended her soccer games and school activities. As such, the hearing officer ordered, Rob should help pay her support, too.

Despite being named a defendant in Mike’s lawsuit, neither Rob nor any legal representative for him ever showed up in court or contested the rulings. But Stephanie did. Her attorney argued in an appeal that parenthood shared by one mother and two fathers “would lead to a strange and unworkable situation.” So, the lawyer reasoned, Rob should not be forced to help pay for L.’s care. David Wecht, the state-court judge charged with hearing the appeal, agreed with Stephanie’s conclusions, albeit for different reasons. Pennsylvania law did not allow for the recognition of two fathers of the same child, he wrote in his opinion, and thus he could not order two men to pay paternal support. Wecht concluded that under the law, Mike was L.’s legal father. Fraud is the only way to rebut the key paternity doctrine, and Wecht, like the hearing officer, concluded fraud did not induce Mike to continue as L.’s dad after the DNA results; love did.

The superior court agreed with and fully upheld the lower court’s decision.  The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declined to hear the case.  There, however, the issue was whether the lower court erred in failing to find fraud, not whether the presumption of paternity by estoppel should be abandoned or abrogated, which did not occur until recently, in K.E.M. v. P.C.S., No. 67 MAP 2011, 2012 WL 573635 (Pa. Feb. 21, 2012), as set forth above, and now the court may — and must — consider the best interest of the child when applying paternity by estoppel.