R.K.J. v. S.P.K.
77 A.3d 33
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- A.Q.K. was born July 26, 2004; R.K.J. was married to R.J., Sr. who separated in 2003; a divorce decree was entered in 2006.
- S.P.K. and R.K.J. had a long, non-marital relationship; they lived together about six years after the child’s birth.
- S.P.K. signed an Acknowledgment of Paternity and acted as the father; he was aware the child might not be biologically his yet raised and supported him.
- A paternity action led to a 2010 order recognizing S.P.K. as the father by estoppel for child support; later, S.P.K. sought de novo review and DNA testing.
- On remand, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem and an evaluator; the court denied genetic testing and joinder, keeping the 2010 support order and releasing escrowed payments to R.K.J.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court, and after remand following K.E.M. v. P.C.S., the court again denied testing/joinder and upheld estoppel; the escrow release stood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of best interests standard under K.E.M. | K.E.M. requires a psychological test. | Both psychological and economic factors inform best interests. | Court rejected pure psychological test; adopted a flexible, case-specific approach per K.E.M. |
| Best interests of continuing the paternity fiction | Maintaining the fiction harms A.Q.K.’s interests. | Estoppel based on conduct is appropriate given the relationship. | Court upheld estoppel and declined to disestablish SPK’s status for support. |
| Adequacy of record on psychological/emotional best interests | Record should explore A.Q.K.’s psychological interests without SPK. | Evaluator Hughes properly developed the record. | Record found adequate; no error in remand evaluation. |
| denial of genetic testing and joinder | Biological father should be joined; testing is warranted. | Estoppel prevents genetic testing and joinder given SPK’s long-held role. | Court affirmed denial of testing/joinder; estoppel appropriately applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2012) (estoppel and best interests require a developed record; flexibility in applying doctrine)
- K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2012) (factors include continuity, support, psychological security; not solely psychological test)
- V.E. v. W.M., 54 A.3d 368 (Pa. Super. 2012) (estoppel analysis depends on timing and relationship development)
- Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 176 (Pa. 1997) (explanation of estoppel in paternity actions and fairness between parents)
- Mencer v. Ruch, 928 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 2007) (child-support objectives are for reasonable expenses and best interests)