A.S. v. I.S., 130 A.3d 763

Twin sons born in Serbia in 1998; Mother and Stepfather married in Serbia and moved to Pennsylvania in 2005, separated in 2009 with informal shared custody.
Stepfather filed for divorce in 2010 and pursued custody, including an emergency petition to prevent Mother’s relocation to California in 2012; court granted emergency relief and ordered temporary custody arrangement.
2013 custody proceedings resulted in a final order granting shared legal and physical custody, with restrictions on relocation without consent and requirements for co-parenting counseling.
Mother filed a child support complaint against Stepfather in 2012; a support master dismissed it, saying Stepfather owed no duty since he is not the biological father.
Mother appealed the trial court’s dismissal; the Superior Court affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine the stepparent’s duty to support and whether guidelines apply.
Majority held that a stepparent who undertakes affirmative steps to obtain equal parental rights may owe child support; case remanded to calculate support under guidelines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a stepparent who obtains equal parental rights owes child support.	Mother argues Stepfather’s litigation and equal custodial rights create a duty.	Stepfather argues no duty exists absent biological paternity.	Yes, Stepfather bears a support obligation.
If a duty exists, should support be calculated under the statutory guidelines?	Mother contends guidelines should apply.	Stepfather concedes guidelines apply to cases with a duty.	Yes, guidelines apply; remand for calculation.

Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523 (Pa. 1999) (paternity by estoppel can render a stepparent liable for support when holding out as parent)
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 796 A.2d 407 (Pa. Super. 2002) (established liability when stepfather held himself as father and maintained relationship)
K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 614 Pa. 508 (Pa. 2012) (reaffirms paternity by estoppel and consideration of child’s best interests)
L.S.K. v. H.A.N., 813 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super. 2002) (non-biological parent obligated where both acted as parents and custodial rights were obtained)
McNutt v. McNutt, 344 Pa. Super. 321 (Pa. Super. 1985) (stepchild support not owed based solely on in loco parentis status)
Garman v. Garman, 435 Pa. Super. 590 (Pa. Super. 1994) (signing an acknowledgment of paternity alone not enough for support duty)
Drawbaugh v. Drawbaugh, 436 Pa. Super. 57 (Pa. Super. 1994) (minimal visitation alone insufficient for support obligation)