C.H.C. v. C.G.C.-F.
3699 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 20, 2016Background
- Father filed a petition (Sept. 1, 2015) to set aside paternity of a child born in Sept. 1984, claiming he was intoxicated and under duress when he signed the birth certificate and had long doubted paternity.
- Father had previously (2005) filed a petition to contest/vacate paternity in the same support action; that petition was denied by order dated July 12, 2005.
- At the Nov. 23, 2015 hearing, Father’s counsel argued prior judges denied paternity testing (citing estoppel/presumption of paternity) and that changes in law now permit testing because no intact family needs protection; no testimonial evidence was taken.
- The trial court denied the 2015 petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction (statute of limitations), res judicata, and estoppel; Father appealed to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the claim barred by res judicata because it involved the same parties, claim, and prior final judgment in the same support action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father may set aside paternity after prior denial | Father: prior denials prevented testing; changed law and absence of an intact family justify testing now | Trial court: prior final order and procedural bars; res judicata and statute of limitations preclude relitigation | Court: Claim barred by res judicata; appeal affirmed |
| Whether estoppel or presumption of paternity prevents testing | Father: presumption/estoppel previously used to deny testing was misapplied; alleges fraud/duress at signing | Trial court: estoppel may apply but res judicata and jurisdictional bars suffice to deny relief | Court: Did not reach estoppel in depth; res judicata dispositive |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying hearing/evidence | Father: sought relief now under changed law; requested testing | Trial court: no new cause; prior adjudication in same support matter; no abuse shown | Court: No abuse of discretion; factual resolution for trial court |
| Whether procedural defaults (Rules of Appellate Procedure) affect appeal | Father: filed Rule 1925(b) statement after court order; sought to avoid penalty | Appellee: procedural noncompliance could warrant waiver | Court: excused late filing per circumstances; merits considered despite initial noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Vargo v. Schwartz, 940 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for paternity orders)
- Barr v. Bartolo, 927 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. 2007) (review standards in family law appeals)
- Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176 (Pa. 1997) (presumption of paternity and estoppel framework)
- Freedman v. McCandless, 654 A.2d 529 (Pa. 1995) (definition and aims of paternity estoppel)
- Fish v. Behers, 741 A.2d 721 (Pa. 1999) (presumption of paternity principles)
- Strauser v. Stahr, 726 A.2d 1052 (Pa. 1999) (presumption and public policy in paternity cases)
- N.C. v. M.H., 923 A.2d 499 (Pa. Super. 2007) (paternity and estoppel considerations)
- K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2012) (narrowing estoppel to child’s best interests)
- Holz v. Holz, 850 A.2d 751 (Pa. Super. 2004) (res judicata doctrine)
- Scott v. Mershon, 657 A.2d 1304 (Pa. Super. 1995) (res judicata applicable to paternity)
- Dempsey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 653 A.2d 679 (Pa. Super. 1995) (res judicata principles)