*2 KELLY, Before LALLY-GREEN and OLSZEWSKI, JJ.
KELLY, J.: ¶ Appellant, Philip (“Piersody”) appeals from the trial court’s status, granting order intervenor on going custody Raymond (“Beltran”). We hold granting intervenor status to Beltran is interlocutory and unreviewable time, yet trial as the court has not ren a final determination on the dered Accordingly, quash. issues. ¶2 procedural The relevant facts and history of this case are as follows. Pierso- (“Moth- dy Maryke Faessen Beltran er”) engaged ten-year in a cus- J.P., tody out battle over who was born in 1989. and Mother wedlock However, Piersody readily never married. presumed paternity, gave his last name to child, custody, partial obtained support. At the time provided child engaged Mother had also been conception, on-going an sexual subsequently Beltran. Mother married a child. Beltran and later bore him After child, pri- of her second Mother birth (Pa.R.A.P. order as of locutory vately questioned whether 311); by per- actually father of In a New Mat- J.P. (Pa.R.A.P. 312, 1311, 42 Pa. mission many contempt of the response ter to one 702(b)); or- § or a collateral C.S.A. actions filed between Mother and Pierso- (Pa.R.A.P.313). of the der even far to assert dy, Mother went so *3 to goes directly order appealability an Piersody of J.P. was the father to jurisdiction the Court asked the ¶ Meanwhile, Mother and Beltran ob- the order. review testing DNA that concluded Beltran tained Hosp., 717 Pace v. Thomas Univ. biological was father. J.P.’s Jefferson A final or- (Pa.Super.1998). A.2d court a declara- petitioned Mother the of all claims any disposes der is order tory judgment to establish Beltran as the defined as a expressly and all parties, biological Following father of J.P. consid- statute, or is entered as a by final order evidence, the held that eration court the trial court’s pursuant final order claiming Beltran was (b)(1) (3). Pa.R.A.P. 341 determination. was father and the court — following provides The Note adjudicated father of part: pertinent adjudicate J.P. The court did not existing rights and duties of as to partial following is a list orders adjudica- Piersody appealed the child. longer appealable as final that are no tion of Beltran as the father of orders to Rule 341 but appeal J.P. This Court dismissed the might fall under appropriate case prejudice, neglected because had (Interlocutory by Appeals Rules 312 post-trial following to file motions the de- Permission) Orders) (Collateral or 313 claratory judgment action. Chapter:
¶ 4 Following Piersody’s ap- dismissal of
peal from the declaratory judgment, Bel- petition
tran filed a to intervene (4) denying party right an order ongoing custody par- between intervene. Relying upon ties. the earlier paternity added). (Emphasis Pa.R.A.P. Note ruling in Beltran’s favor and Pa.R.C.P. custody Further, “a order is considered 1915.6, the trial court declared that Bel- (1) if it appealable only final and is both: tran was a completed entered after the court has its have not previously been terminated and (2) merits; hearings intended on the granted petition to intervene. This by complete constitute resolu court to appeal followed. custody pending tion of the claims between appeal, Appellant On raises this issue v. M.M.B., 448 parties.” G.B. Pa.Su for our review: (en (1996) per. THE WHETHER DEFENSE OF ‘ES- banc) added). (emphasis BE TOPPEL’ CAN RAISED IN AC- appeal, 7 In the instant chal- TIONS BROUGHT UNDER Pa.R.C.P. grant- the trial lenges the order of court 1915.6? ing Beltran, biolog- intervenor status Brief J.P., pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. ical father ¶ Preliminarily, deter we must 1915.6, dis- ongoing custody child properly mine whether this is now deny- pute. understand how an order We us. before ing right to could party intervene final, law, appealable considered a Pennsylvania appeal may Under an (1) change or how it be taken from: a final order or an the rule before circumstances, qualify may, order certified the trial court as a under certain (2) However, (Pa.R.A.P.341); final order an inter- collateral order. 313(b). stating Supreme
found no case law or rule that an Pa.R.A.P. Our Court has granting recently explained: intervenor status under Rule 1915.6 has ever been considered an Rule of 313 sets Appellate Procedure Moreover, immediately appealable order. general exception forth a narrow to the order in generated subject rule that final are orders ongoing custody proceedings. child exception, appellate review. Under this qualify the order on cannot as a “fi- order is considered final order as it well because was entered if immediately appealable nal” and completed before the court had hear- separable its from and collateral to the action; (2) ings on the merits and was not intended main in- cause of complete important the court to constitute a resolu- too to be denied volved is review; question presented tion of the claims pending between *4 G.B., postponed is such that if review is until parties. supra. See case, in judgment final the claimed ¶ Appellant simply provide 8 does not right irreparably This will be lost. third any jurisdiction suggest statement of or prong requires that the matter must grounds for this Court to consider the effectively appeal on be unreviewable order on as appeal final under Pa.R.AP. judgment. from final Here, 341. appealed the order from does Wells, 424, 427, Pa. Commonwealth 553 dispose parties not of all claims or all (1998) (internal 719 730 A.2d citations case; involved in it not is one which is omitted). All factors forth in three set expressly defined as final order stat- qualify Rule 313 must met to as a be ute; and it was not entered a final as appeal purposes. collateral order (c) to subdivision of Rule Pace, supra (citing McGourty at 541 Pa.R.AP. in (stating, See 341 ab- Co., Pennsylvania Mut. 704 Millers Ins. sence of determination that express imme- (Pa.Super.1997)). A.2d appeal diate would facilitate resolution of panel McGourty, this Court cautioned: case, entire or where order other form of The collateral order doctrine must be adjudicates decision than all fewer claims in narrowly “protect construed order to parties, and it shall not constitute final integrity legal of the fundamental order); G.B., supra. Nothing in the rec- may that final principle orders be provided appeal ord to us on demonstrates appeal. To hold otherwise allow would requested that Appellant certification collateral order doctrine to swallow 341(c)(3) the trial court under Rule causing ... up litiga- the final order rule sought permission this Court’s under Rule delayed by tion interrupted to be and Thus, Appellant appeal filed his with- trial piecemeal review of court deci- 341(c)(3) out court certification under Rule ” sions .... permission and without of this under Court omitted). (citation Id. at 665 Furthermore, appeal- Rule 312. among ed from is not those listed under separable 9 An order is not and right. Rule 311 as as of Ac- po if it has the collateral an action cordingly, appeal qualify the order on must in tential to decide at least one issue as a collateral order under Rule 313 to Pace, supra (citing Van der Laan v. warrant immediate review. (Pa.Su Hosp., Nazareth separable Citing
A Commonwealth v. per.1997)). collateral order is an order (1974), Myers, A.2d 131 from and collateral to the main cause of too the reiterated that order is action where the involved is Wells Court it can immediately appealable and the unless important to be denied review that immediate question such that if review said denial of review presented is impossible any review what postponed judgment is until final the would render case, appellant’s claim. also irreparable the claim will be lost. soever of the See in the custo- Schwartz, 556 Pa. choice but Ben v. the child’s bio- dy where Beltran is (stating purposes that for of law and his logical father as a matter it issue for sufficient have not been terminated. sought important which review is However, decide this issue or rights we do not particular party; must involve apply should when whether deeply public policy going rooted in be- hand). and duties of court determines yond particular litigation at best inter- parties light all the case, join present 10 In the ests. custody der of Beltran in the record, Following our review of to resolve issues related to potential and the relevant parties, the briefs of the Pace, custody, support and visitation. See law, juris- for our Court’s we see basis Further, the denial of immediate supra. at this time. The order issue diction joinder review of the order will not cause interlocutory, this matter case is lost, irreparably claim to be yet Accord- as a whole is not reviewable. from a he can seek review jurisdiction- on ingly, quash Wells, supra; final order. See deny Appellee’s moot grounds al Ben, reasons, we hold supra. For these to quash. motion the order in also fails *5 purposes of qualify as collateral order for ¶ remanded Appeal quashed. 13 Case interlocutory review under Rule 313. is proceedings. for further Jurisdiction relinquished. ¶ Moreover, grant- 11 the order at issue biologi-
ed intervenor status to the child’s Pa.R.C.P.1915.6, Judge cal father1 14 OLSZEWSKI filed a provides pertinent part: opinion. which dissenting RULE 1915.6 PAR- JOINDER OF OLSZEWSKI, J., Dissenting. TIES majority 1 The dismisses this (a)(1) plead- If the court learns from the inappropriate as and thus ings parent or other source that a interlocu- agree I that it is review. While parental whose have not been I there- tory, I would reach the merits. previously person terminated or a who respectfully fore dissent. physical custody has the child is not a of party to the it shall order that “[ojrdinarily, 2 true that While is joined party.... be permitting intervention is interlocu- added). Corp. v. (emphasis tory appealable,” The and not M.N.C. Pa.R.C.P.1915.6 Ctr., Pa.Super. Med. 334 joinder prescribed mandatory in the rule is Mount Lebanon 359, 490, 492 rev’d on other joinder necessary parties. 483 A.2d See (1986); 490, A.2d Explanatory grounds, 510 Pa. 509 1256 1915.6 Comment—1994.2 332, Moreover, Manley, In Re 305 we note that the rule allows see also 557, (1982), n. I would not joined dispute for the 451 A.2d 559 5 party (3). Pa.R.C.P.1915.6(a)(2), particular in this joinder. strictly apply the rule See importance I of our recognize principles we fail to see how the normally, this case is rules but upon procedural articulated and relied complicated It cus- far normal. is apply would to the issue from specific through the tody dispute dragged that has joinder or whether the trial court had claratory Judgment confirmed biological parentage action which Any 1. of Beltran’s issue Declaratory Judg- Beltran). prior parentage was decided in the ment action and is, therefore, judicata. res Philadelphia Piersody, No. 1427 See Beltran v. respect with rule makes no distinctions The Sep- (unpublished judgment order filed 1997 meaning “parent.” to the 18, 1997) (dismissing appeal from De- tember for years; parties courts alone has are estopped, blood tests will taken several I refuse be ordered. punish months. litigants or by strictly the child further Brinkley King, Pa. adhering to the rule. I Because believe decision). (plurality judicial
that economy require and fairness presumption is that a child born into an merits, us to reach I now do so. intact marriage presumed the hus- Stahr, band’s child. See Strauser v. ¶ 3 The court below determined that (1999). 726 A.2d “[T]he father, Beltran is J.P.’s but presumption only by can proof be rebutted stopped short of bestowing parental rights either that the in- physically husband was on Beltran. contends de- capable fathering a child that he did spite judicial declaration of J.P.’s bio- during not have access to his wife logical heritage, Beltran is Here, period conception.” Id. being declared “parent.” argues He presumption there is no because J.P. was that Beltran is properly permitted thus not marriage. not born into an intact I there- Pa.R.C.P.1915.6, to intervene under estoppel. fore turn to requires the court to “a bars the introduction of Estoppel previously have not been medical evidence in instances where a Pa.R.C.P.1915.6(a)(l). terminated.” I accepts support mother “seeks and of a agree. child from one man who she claims is the ¶ 4 Admittedly, testing DNA confirmed father and then seeks to establish that Beltran is J.P.’s father. It another Strayer is the child’s father.” however, Piersody, who has served as Ryan, (Pa.Super.1999). the actual father of the child. In other words: consistently accepted paternity, inter- (and/or the conduct of the father extensively acted the child as a fa- mother) may operate to further estop *6 ther, 1990, provided support giv- since and inquiry. Under the circumstances contrast, en the child his last name. accepted where the father has the child asserting Beltran’s sole a paren- basis own, may and him treated as his he tal interest is a court declaration that he is thereafter, reject upon separation, pa- biologically linked to the child. ternity and demand a blood test to rebut presumption. must be same Supreme 5 Our Court has addressed said for the mother. cannot hold She analysis the method of the presumption out to the father [one man] and paternity estoppel. thereafter, upon separation, charge a legal analysis in [T]he essential these paternity. different man with first, cases is twofold: one considers 398, Ely, Christianson presumption paternity whether (1990); see 568 A.2d also Fish v. does, If it applies particular to (Pa.1999) Behers, (holding pre- one then considers whether asserting estopped that wife was from Second, sumption has been rebutted. if that the father child of her presumption has been rebutted or is indeed the true father of that child after inapplicable, questions one then whether she held out her as the child’s husband estoppel applies. Estoppel may ei- bar Here, by years). father for several plaintiff making ther a the claim or from actions, Piersody established himself as paternity. a defendant from If denying presumptive parent, and Mother ac- presumption has been rebutted quiesced to this for at least if the apply, does facts of years the first four of J.P.’s life. evidence, case include such evi- proof If trier medical dence must be considered. Nor does the recent fact father finds that one or both of J.P.’s test anything. [does blood change “[A] Pennsylvania, ... unless overcome the presumption
not] COMMONWEALTH Appellee, estopped parent was not presumptive Christianson, denying paternity.” from hand, at 968. In the case GOGGINS, Appellant. Inmom and he presumptive parent, is the denying paternity. now Pennsylvania. Superior Court Therefore, ir- heritage is 14, 1999. Argued June relevant, presumed father alone and “the Filed March duty support rights as well as [has] 9, 2000. Revised March As custody.” to visitation Id. and/or not assert 8 Because Beltran could instance, first parental interests requirements.
has not met Rule 1915.6’s requires Rule 1915.6 the court to
Again, “a whose have parent previously terminated.” Pa.R.C.P.
been
1915.6(a)(1). Beltran is not “a previous- parental terminated,” had
ly pa- because he never Moreover, he is unable to rights.
rental parental in an action to assert
prevail
rights, standing and therefore has no
intervene in an action reserved for those may legitimately rights.
who assert those
See, D., e.g., Michael H. v. Gerald 491 U.S. n. 105 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. (1989) (stating that a must have parental
a “substantive to a relation- standing
ship” assert claim). It improper was therefore Beltran to inter- permit
the lower court *7 action and interfere
vene pa-
with lawful exercise of his regard
rental J.P.3
¶ 9 I reverse. therefore would and one mother. have two fathers impossible for J.P. to he cannot I also note that it is 130-31, H., may parents. have 109 S.Ct. three While a child 491 U.S. See Michael fathers, J.A.L. v. or two see "multiple two mothers (stating that fatherhood E.P.H., history of this support or traditions created a (parties their conduct recognizes a legislature country"). Until our appellee’s between parent-like unit, family basic structure to the different child, partner and her homosexual and Mother. parents Piersody two J.P. has — standing custody), giving partner to seek thus