Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
M filed a complaint seeking support from F, whom she believes to be G.L.M.'s biological father. M was married to H.M.M. at the time of G.L.M.'s birth, and F relied on the presumption of paternity. M also argued that the assumption of parental responsibilities implicated paternity by estoppel. M's husband knew of M's affair with F and had genetic testing done and was excluded as the biological father. The husband asked that his name not be put on the birth certificate, but he remained with M and raised the child as his own. F declined to be tested but also acknowledged the child as his own. The child called both men Daddy. F spent time with the child and gave him gifts as well. F offered evidence that, although the husband is not identified as the father on G.L.M.'s birth certificate, baptismal records so indicate. While husband and M were separated as of the time of the hearing, neither had commenced divorce proceedings; their last tax returns were filed jointly, with G.L.M. claimed as a dependent; and both contributed to G.L.M.'s upbringing. The court dismissed the support action against F, finding that the presumption of paternity was controlling and, alternatively, that the husband should be regarded as G.L.M.'s father via paternity by estoppel. M filed a notice of appeal, and the Superior Court affirmed that even if the presumption of parentage did not apply (because the husband knew the child was not his) that paternity by estoppel did. If a person holds the child out as his own and provides support the law does not allow a person to challenge his role as a parent once he has accepted it, even with contrary DNA and blood tests. M appealed again.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co