K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 798

Mother seeks child support from Appellee, whom she believes to be the biological father of G.L.M.; Appellee moves to dismiss arguing the intact-marriage presumption of paternity applies and paternity by estoppel should bar suit.
DNA testing excluded H.M.M. as biological father; Appellee had some involvement with G.L.M. over four years and acknowledged the child at times.
Trial court ruled in favor of Appellee on both the presumption and estoppel theories, finding estoppel controlling and the presumption applicable.
Superior Court, in a divided ruling, held the presumption did not apply because it would not protect an intact marriage, but affirmed estoppel as a barrier to suit.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to reconsider paternity by estoppel and whether it should apply on a best-interests basis rather than rote application.
Court remanded for further development of the record to assess the child’s best interests and the proper role of estoppel in this context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether paternity by estoppel can bar a support action where the marriage is separated but not dissolved.	K.E.M. argues estoppel should apply to bar suit based on conduct and reliance.	Appellee argues estoppel is valid where a party held the child out and provided support.	Remanded to assess best interests; estoppel may apply on a developed record.
Whether the presumption of paternity should control where there is an intact marriage and DNA tests exclude the husband as the biological father.	Mother contends the presumption should apply only to protect a marriage; when not protective, estoppel governs.	Appellee argues presumption remains strong and can bar the suit.	Presumption limited in modern contexts; court did not affirm its invocation without considering best interests.
Whether genetic testing and modern realities justify revising or limiting paternity by estoppel.	Mother urges genetic testing be admitted and considered; advocates flexibility.	Appellee argues estoppel remains needed to protect the child’s stability and foster responsibility.	Court endorses a more flexible, child-focused approach, remanding for further development.

Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176 (Pa. 1997) (presumption of paternity generally applies to child born during marriage)
Fish v. Behers, 741 A.2d 721 (Pa. 1999) (estoppel when party holds child out as their own; biology may be irrelevant)
K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 23 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2011) (case addressing paternity by estoppel and presumption in modern context)
Jones v. Trojak, 634 A.2d 201 (Pa. 1993) (estoppel and testing considerations in paternity determinations)
J.C. v. J.S., 826 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2003) (estoppel and fraud considerations in paternity)
Vargo v. Schwartz, 940 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussion of DNA testing and estoppel in complex parental status)
Strauser v. Stahr, 726 A.2d 1052 (Pa. 1999) (debates on genetics and traditional paternity presumptions)
Commonwealth ex rel. Gonzalez v. Andreas, 369 A.2d 416 (Pa. Super. 1976) (warning against harsh consequences of denying parentage in child’s best interests)
Lynn v. Powell, 809 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 2002) (presumption not applicable where marriage remained but biological status known)