The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Glover (P) filed a complaint for support of P.J., her infant son. P and D met as students at Millersville University and had a brief sexual relationship. P discovered she was pregnant. D visited the hospital to see the boy and signed the birth certificate as the father. D visited the child sporadically. When the initial support complaint was filed in 1995, D completed the related paperwork, which included an acknowledgment of paternity. After he left school, visits with the child were infrequent; he attended only a few birthday parties and on a few occasions brought the child gifts and clothes. In 1997, D filed for partial custody of the child, resulting in an order allowing him visitation. P rekindled her relationship with and then married the man she had dated before she became involved with D. They remained married until sometime in 2004. P.J. called P's husband 'Dad,' and P characterized him as the dad who was 'there for [P.J.] every day.' D regularly paid his court-ordered child support until 2006, when he had a private paternity test taken which excluded him as P.J.'s biological father. D demanded a hearing, raising the issue of paternity for the first time. Genetic testing confirmed the results. A hearing on the issue of paternity by estoppel was held, at which both P and D testified. The trial court entered an order finding that D was estopped from denying paternity. This appeal followed. D argues that P's continued reassurances that he was the father worked a fraud upon him and this showing of fraud precludes application of the doctrine of paternity by estoppel. D also argues that he has not held himself out as the child's father or provided paternal support such that he should be estopped from challenging his paternity.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.