T.E.B. v. C.A.B.
74 A.3d 170
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Child born in 2007 during marriage of Husband (T.E.B.) and Mother (C.A.B.); Mother had an extramarital relationship with P.D.K., who was the biological father and whose paternity was known to parties before birth.
- Husband raised Child as his own, forming a parent–child bond; Mother and Husband held the fiction that Husband was the father.
- P.D.K. attempted early contact (took photos, attended appointment, sought DNA testing, and filed a custody complaint in 2007), but his initial custody complaint was dismissed with prejudice after Mother and Husband denied his claim.
- P.D.K. delayed further action because he feared retaliation; after Mother and P.D.K. resumed a relationship (2009) they obtained DNA testing and P.D.K. filed to intervene in the custody case (2009).
- Trial court allowed P.D.K. to intervene (Dec. 2, 2009) and later, after a custody hearing, awarded shared legal custody to Husband, Mother, and P.D.K., with a physical custody schedule allocating substantial time to each party (Oct. 5, 2012).
- Husband appealed, arguing paternity by estoppel should bar P.D.K. from intervening, bar admission of DNA evidence, and preclude inclusion of P.D.K. in the custody order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (P.D.K./Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paternity by estoppel should bar P.D.K. from asserting parental rights | Paternity-by-estoppel applies because Husband and Mother held Child out as Husband’s; P.D.K. delayed and had little contact | Estoppel does not bar P.D.K. because Mother and Husband actively concealed paternity and frustrated his attempts to establish paternity | Trial court did not err; estoppel inapplicable because P.D.K. promptly pursued rights and was impeded by Husband/Mother’s conduct |
| Whether DNA test results should have been excluded under paternity-by-estoppel | DNA evidence should be barred if estoppel prevents P.D.K. from asserting paternity | DNA admissible; estoppel not applicable given parties’ conduct and delay excuses | DNA evidence and P.D.K.’s intervention were properly considered; estoppel did not bar admission |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding shared custody including P.D.K. | Inclusion of P.D.K. harms Child’s stability and undermines Husband’s parental role | Custody order serves Child’s best interests; Husband’s relationship preserved; P.D.K. has a bond and sought involvement | Husband waived challenge by not filing exceptions; alternatively, custody award is supported by best-interest factors and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether dismissal of P.D.K.’s earlier complaint with prejudice estops later intervention | Earlier dismissal and delay should bar later claims | Earlier dismissal resulted from Mother/Husband misrepresentations, which excused delay and coerced inaction | Dismissal did not estop P.D.K.; his delay was excused by Mother/Husband’s conduct and thus intervention permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2012) (paternity-by-estoppel remains viable but applies only when it serves the child’s best interests)
- B.K.B. v. J.G.K., 954 A.2d 630 (Pa.Super. 2008) (putative father’s long delay may estop later challenge)
- C.T.D. v. N.E.E., 653 A.2d 28 (Pa.Super. 1995) (biological father not estopped by parents’ fiction where he was not obstructed, but his own delay can estop him)
- Fish v. Behers, 741 A.2d 721 (Pa. 1999) (estoppel protects child’s security in parental identity)
- Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc., 819 A.2d 534 (Pa. 2003) (declining estoppel where those who misled are not challenging the fiction)