130 A.3d 763
Pa.2015Background
- Mother and Stepfather married in Serbia in 2005; they moved to Pennsylvania with Mother’s twin sons born in 1998.
- Mother and Stepfather separated in 2009; they informally shared physical custody of the children who were about eleven.
- Stepfather filed for divorce in 2010 and, in 2012, sought custody and an emergency petition to prevent Mother’s relocation.
- The trial court granted the emergency petition, awarded Mother primary custody with Stepfather visitation, and later granted shared custody after a July 2013 full hearing.
- Mother began a child-support action in September 2012; a support master dismissed it, citing lack of duty since Stepfather was not the biological father.
- The Superior Court and this Court granted review to determine whether a stepparent who litigated for and obtained equal parental rights may owe child support and whether guidelines apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stepparent who obtained equal parental rights owes child support | Mother argues Stepfather’s pursuit of equal parental rights creates a duty to support. | Stepfather contends stepparents generally owe no support and that in loco parentis is insufficient. | Stepfather owes a duty of support; equity supports support obligations when rights are equal. |
| If a duty exists, whether guidelines apply to calculate support | Support should be governed by standard child-support guidelines. | Stepfather suggests guidelines may not apply if no duty exists or if special equity applies. | Guidelines apply when a stepparent owes support due to equal custodial rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523 (Pa. 1999) (paternity by estoppel can create liability when a stepparent holds out as parent)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 796 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2002) (stepparent liable for support when holding out as father after separation)
- K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2012) (reaffirmed paternity by estoppel; considered best interests and continuity)
- L.S.K. v. H.A.N., 813 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super. 2002) (non-biological parent may owe support when equity applies after in loco parentis)
- McNutt v. McNutt, 496 A.2d 816 (Pa. Super. 1985) (in loco parentis status alone insufficient for future support obligation)
- Garman v. Garman, 646 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 1994) (signing acknowledgment of paternity without ongoing parental relationship not enough)
- Drawbaugh v. Drawbaugh, 647 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 1994) (minimal visitation without custody rights not enough for support obligation)
- Miller v. Miller, 478 A.2d 351 (N.J. 1984) (stepparent may be liable where they assume duties and undermine biological father)
- In re Davies’ Adoption, 46 A.2d 252 (Pa. 1946) (adoption-related parental status considerations in priority setting)