HARRISBURG - A Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in a child support case suggests the courts may more strictly hold biological fathers to child support duties and may emphasize what is in the best interests of children in deciding whether support should be paid by the biological father or by the man who acts as the father.
The court ruling Tuesday reinstated a case filed by a woman who had a child in 2006 after an extramarital affair but whose husband cared for the boy as his own. She pursued child support from the man she believes is the boy's biological father after she and her husband became estranged.
However, a York County judge dismissed her claim based on a legal concept known as "paternity by estoppel," where a couple has held the child out to be the child of their marriage.
The Supreme Court overturned the lower court, sending the case back to the judge to gather more information about what would be in the boy's best interests.
The high court said the woman's estranged husband would not necessarily be obliged to pay support just because he held himself out as the father. In addition, the majority opinion said child support should be the biological father's duty.
"We realize there will be children of broken marriages who may never enjoy the supportive relationship with either 'psychological' or biological fathers," wrote Justice Thomas Saylor in the five-judge opinion.
"All things being equal in this regard, we conclude that the responsibility for fatherhood should lie with the biological father."
The husband knew that the boy was not his biological child and that his wife had engaged in the affair with the purported biological father around the time the boy was conceived, Saylor said. The husband opted not to have his name listed on the birth certificate, genetic testing ruled him out as the father, and the mother's two grown daughters were told the boy was their half-brother.
The purported biological father declined genetic testing. His role in the child's life included money for Christmas presents, some gifts, visits to parks and a playground and a cell phone to ensure the safety of the mother and child.
The majority opinion said the record does not include information to help them determine what harm might result if the estranged husband's parental status were terminated.
Kathleen Prendergast, the York lawyer for the purported biological father, said her client believes the best interests of the boy are for the mother's estranged husband to pay support.
"That's the person this child has known as his father for the first four years of his life," said Prendergast.
Her client wants to have little involvement in the boy's life because, in part, he has other children who might be adversely affected if they were to learn he has a son out of wedlock, she said.
"He'd like not to be involved," she said.
The mother's lawyer, Jeff Marshall, declined to comment because the case was being sent back for further proceedings.
The parties are identified only by their initials, and the Supreme Court file was sealed, according to the prothonotary's office in Harrisburg.
Justice Joan Orie Melvin said the General Assembly should step in to determine the factors to consider in making paternity determinations.
A dissent by Justice Max Baer, joined by Justice Seamus McCaffery, argued in favor of completely abandoning what he called "the legal fiction that the individual who cared for the child is the parent," unless they willingly undertake that responsibility.
