Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Parent’ Category

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.

Read Full Post »

The White House EmblemThe National Christmas Tree

Our firm takes pride in helping familes grow through the loving concept of adoption.  This process involves the legal termination of rights of the biological parent(s) followed by a proceeding for adoption of the child into a new family.  

Aside from the legal services we offer, we want our clients and the general public to know that adoption is an important concept in our society and it should be embraced and supported.  November was National Adoption Month.  It came and went without much national attention, unfortunately.

Each year, the American President issues a proclamation about adoption in the United States.  This year, in October, Barack Obama penned a proclamation that November was National Adoption Month.  As reported on Adoption.com, the President’s proclamation honored families that strengthened America through adoption and recommitted the United States to reducing the number of children currently awaiting adoption in the United States.   Here is the Proclamation signed October 30, 2009:

All children deserve a safe, loving family to protect and care for them. In America, thousands of young people are waiting for that opportunity. During National Adoption Month, we honor those families that have strengthened America through adoption, and we recommit to reducing the number of children awaiting adoption into loving families.

America is a country rich in resources and filled with countless caring men and women who hope to adopt. These individuals come from all walks of life, united in their commitment to love a child who is in need of the protective arms of a parent. We must do more to ensure that adoption is a viable option for them. By continually opening up the doors to adoption, and supporting full equality in adoption laws for all American families, we allow more children to find the permanent homes they yearn for and deserve.

This month, we also focus on children in foster care. These children are not in the system by their own choosing, but are forced into it by unfortunate or tragic circumstances. These young people have specific needs and require unique support. Federal, State, and local governments, communities, and individuals all have a role to play in ensuring that foster children have the resources and encouragement they need to realize their hopes and dreams.

The course of our future will depend on what we do to help the next generation of Americans succeed. This month, we celebrate those families brought together by adoption and renew our commitments to children in the foster care system.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2009 as National Adoption Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month by reaching out to support and honor adoptive families, as well as to participate actively in efforts to find permanent homes for waiting children.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

Through the Holidays and into 2010, let us all remember that strong, loving families are the backbone of our civiliation.  Those who are noble enough and brave enough to adopt deserve our collective support and recognition all year long.

Read Full Post »

 

As CNN and others have reported, the marriage between Joh and Kate Gosselin has terminated in divorce, but does that mean the saga is over? Apparently, they have an agreement on custody.  They will have shared physical custody.  Kate will have primary at the marital residence and Jon will see the children on some sort of schedule. 

In Pennsylvania, a claim for custody involves a series of steps that can involve a mediation, followed by a conference, followed by an actual custody trial.  There is no right to trial by jury in Pennsylvania, constitutionally.  Hence, Pennsylvania the legislature can require that certain kinds of cases are always heard non-jury (by a judge), which is precisely the case in matters involving divorce, equitable distribution, custody, and support in Pennsylvania. 

Plus, custody orders are always modifiable, depending upon the best interest of the children.  Does this mean that Jon and Kate should be in court every few months to craft and re-craft their custody agreement to accommodate their changing lifestyles? 

Absolutely not. 

In every case, our firm recommends that the parties avoid court whenever possible, especially in the area of custody.  In order for parents to raise their children in a healthy environment, the parents need to learn to agree to a plan of cooperative management for their children.   This is especially true when parents are separated or divorced.  The courts are not supposed to be a third-party co-manager in daily disputes.  In fact, a judge will be quick to express his or her frustration with your case if it appears that you are seeking judicial intervention before genuinely trying to work out your issue. 

This does not mean you should never utilize the courts to sort out a significant dispute.  Even parties who negotiate a well written custody agreement may later come to find that their lives have changed beyond their control, which may require court intervention or a new agreement.  For example, one party may lose is job through no fault of his own and find that his best opportunity for new employment exists 1500 miles away from the children.  Obviously, this could dramatically impair that parent’s ability to follow a pre-existing agreement.  In this scenario and many others like it, the courthouse doors will remain open to conduct a relocation hearing, to evaluate how custody rights must change.   

There are a variety of other issues that call for judicial intervention, notwithstanding the existence of a well-drafted custody agreement.  For example, consider the issue of legal custody.  Unlike physical custody which involves the number of overnights each parent has with children, legal custody deals with each parents’ respective right to have a say in how the child is raised:  health care, education, religion, and other issues involve a choice by parents.  Here, even with an iron-clad custody agreement about custody, over time, there may be new issues that surface in the child’s life which require mutual input from each parent.  Even happy couples can disagree on these matters.   

So what does all this mean for Jon and Kate?

It means they have a long future ahead of them if they fail to communicate effectively.  The number of children they have, coupled with the public way in which they live their lives, will multiple the range of custody issues they face by eight fold.  For example, the direction of Jon’s career remains uncertain.  He was recently ordered to avoid making public appearances for money because, allegedly, it violates his contract with A&E.  Hence, perhaps even Jon does not know where he’ll be living or working in the future.  As for Kate, it is rumored that she will do her own reality show for A&E (without the kids).  It remains to be seen who will be spending time with these kids, which could impact custody issues.  Plus, the sheer number of kids will trigger issues about how best to care for them.  Again, the parents will need to agree…or go to court. 

For Jon and Kate, the problems have already begun to surface.

It has been reported that Jon objected to Kate doing the future show titled “Kate Plus Eight”  involving Kate and the children (without Jon).  Upon receiving this objection, A&E believed it was left with no choice but to honor Jon’s objection because he has parental rights.  A&E believes that the consent of both parents is needed for A&E to move forward with filming these children in the future.  So, already, we’re seeing a relationship between custodial rights and the respective careers of Jon, Kate, and the real stars of their monstrosity of a TV show:  the “Plus Eight.”  Allegedly, the custody agreement signed between Jon and Kate allows the parent with primary physical custody (Kate) to make decisions about the childrens’ involvement in taping episodes of the show.

Still, assuming that clause exists, it will not trump the “best interest of the children” standard.  Remember, custody agreements are always modifiable.  If one of the children so much as whispers that the show is interfering with his eduction, the show is gone – clause or no clause.  Hopefully, Jon and Kate will re-take control of their lives and come to stand for something other than making money from having outsiders film their childrens’ most precious moments.  Imagine the children growing up, going on dates, and coming to learn that their most personal private moments growing up are located on DVD collection of countless strangers from coast to coast.     

This saga could stop short of a total train wreck, but it will take some dramatic changes on the part of the parents.  First of all, the parents will need to start putting aside some money for the children (if they haven’t already) if it is true that the children have “worked” on the show for now compensation set aside specifically for them.  Plus, the parents will need to select careers that allow them to be parents first.  In short, the parents must learn to put the children first to the point where they become an example of how to make good decisions in the face of great difficulty. 

Unfortunately, for the public, if Jon and Kate make the changes that need to be made, the public may lose interest in them.  So far, the story line has been about seeing kids on TV or reading about the parents’ difficulties in the tabloids. If the children live private lives and the parents focus on just being parents, then the plot line might fizzle out.  So, ironically, if Jon and Kate finally do what they need to do, it may be too late for anyone to learn anything from it.  But at least the children have a chance to learn, and the parents will ultimately spend less time in court.

Read Full Post »