S.N.M. v. M.F.
868 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Father filed to establish paternity and for genetic testing on Sept. 6, 2016; a hearing occurred Dec. 21, 2016.
- At the hearing Father admitted doubts about biological paternity; parties and child submitted to genetic testing immediately after the hearing.
- Genetic test results (docketed Jan. 3, 2017) excluded Father as biological parent (0% probability).
- An administrative court order dated Feb. 27, 2017 declared Father is not the biological father and dismissed the paternity action, cancelling a scheduled March 14, 2017 hearing.
- Mother (through ADA Marcus) appealed the Feb. 27 order, arguing the court erred because: (1) paternity was previously established by Father’s 2003 Acknowledgment of Paternity and paternity-by-estoppel; and (2) the court denied Mother the hearing to contest the genetic-results entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in ordering genetic testing and dismissing action despite a 2003 Acknowledgment of Paternity | Acknowledgment (signed in 2003) is a legal finding of paternity not rescinded; paternity may not be challenged absent fraud, duress, or material mistake | Genetic testing properly ordered to determine biological parentage and address medical/identity concerns | Court reversed: ordering testing was an abuse of discretion because the 2003 acknowledgment (and custody order) established paternity and could not be collaterally challenged now |
| Whether paternity-by-estoppel and custody order should bar genetic testing | Paternity-by-estoppel and the custody order reflect Father held himself out as parent; court must respect those legal effects | Court had humanitarian reasons to permit testing and concerns about child’s medical future | Court agreed with Mother that estoppel/custody status precluded testing; Father remains legal father despite biological exclusion |
| Whether entry of dismissal without the scheduled hearing violated due process | Mother argued cancelling the March 14 hearing denied opportunity to challenge admission of test results | Father relied on test results and administrative dismissal | Court concluded final dismissal was improper; appeal timely; Mother entitled to protections of prior acknowledgment and process (reversal to extent of dismissing Father's legal status) |
| Timeliness/standing of appeal | Mother appealed the Feb. 27 final administrative order within 30 days | Trial court had suggested earlier orders were final and appeal untimely; also questioned ADA standing | Appellate court held earlier orders were interlocutory; the Feb. 27 order was final and appeal was timely; ADA’s representation was proper for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Trojak, 634 A.2d 201 (Pa. 1993) (appellate review of court-ordered blood tests may occur at interlocutory stage)
- R.W.E. v. A.B.R., 961 A.2d 161 (Pa. Super. 2008) (acknowledgment of paternity is a legal finding; after 60 days it may be challenged only for fraud, duress, or material mistake by clear and convincing evidence)
- D.M. v. V.B., 87 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2014) (support or similar court orders foreclose collateral challenge to paternity even if excluded by later blood tests)
- Wachter v. Ascero, 550 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 1988) (blood tests should not be ordered where paternity has been previously determined)
- T.E.B. v. C.A.B., 74 A.3d 170 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review in paternity matters is abuse of discretion)