*1 actions, the court’s solely the then becomes whether tory purpose material according pertaining to the law causing person analyzed harm to the defamed re- are still report privilege. report privilege, sults in loss of the fair to the fair court’s DeMary, supra privi- way, at 762. a Put if the trial Whether error. another leged comply occasion occurred is a matter for the with the rulings and instructions is report privilege, defendant to establish and for the trial the fair requirements of decide, (theoretical) Tribune-Review its deci- court to Oweida v. correctness of the 112, Publishing Company, Pa.Super. the court’s compromised by sions 230, (1991), referred, controlling but whether to the erroneously, privilege abuse of the has occurred is a report privilege? as the neutral principle jury. DeMary, supra for the at question I must answered question believe this affirmative, since, 763. trial despite privileges as inter- court’s view of the two held, DeMary The Court albeit in I they Accordingly, not. changeable, are objections, preliminary the context of that Majority that the decision agree with proof public the burden of borne reversed, and this case retried. must be figure making in order to succeed in out a (a) defamation case media defen
dant(s) requires types two of malice to be “First,
demonstrated. in order to make a
prima plaintiff facie case the must show
that the newspaper acted with actual mal
ice toward the truthfulness of the state
ment.” Id. at 765. The actual malice
referred is that which was defined In re ADOPTION OF S.A.J. the Supreme Court of the United States in Sullivan, 254, New York Times v. 376 U.S. Appeal B.S.D., T.L.D. and of: 710, (1964), 84 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 686 as Appellants. knowledge falsity defamatory of the Superior Pennsylvania. Court of disregard
statements reckless for their falsity. truth or DeMary, supra at 764. Argued Dec. 2001. “Second, to defeat the fair report privilege Filed March 2002. raised, it properly plain once has been tiff must that show defendant was 2002. Reargument Denied by ill plaintiff,” motivated will toward the is,
id. at common law malice. DeMary explains,
As the Court “Actual
malice focuses on the defendant’s attitude truth,
toward whereas common law
malice focuses on the defendant’s attitude plaintiff.” Id. at 764.
towards
¶ Here, major problem one of although report
nomenclature: the neutral exist, report not the fair
privilege does
privilege does. The trial court conflated ruling evidentiary questions
the two instructing jury. question
and in The
STEVENS, J. appeal This is an from order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks 2, 2001, County entered on which Adoption vacated the Final Decree en- on January tered 2001. Appellant (1) raises four appeal: issues on Whether Appellee standing had challenge to (2) decree; adoption Whether the trial failing court erred in to Appellee find that was estopped claiming from to be the fa- (3) S.A.J.; ther of the the trial Whether failing court erred in to that the ter- find Appellee’s privileges mination of visitation by court order was Res Judicata to his claim; (4) present and vacating Whether decree was the best inter- ests of the S.A.J. Appellee raises one issue (1) appeal: Whether should Appellee attorney’s awarded fees. reverse We and remand proceedings for consistent with decision. February was born on S.A.J. Mother, T.L.D.,
1989 to and an unknown 16, 2000, B.S.D., father. On November husband, petition adopt Mother’s filed a S.A.J. The was consented to B.W., alleged Mother and who himself biological to be S.A.J.’s father. On Janu- 22, 2001, ary S.S., Appellee, claiming to be father, Complaint S.A.J.’s natural filed a Custody. Appellee previ- for Partial had ously claimed to be S.A.J.’s father and seeking custody filed an action for partial custody which granted. Moth- er has admitted to sexual relations with both Appellee during B.W. and conception. time of S.A.J.’s Mother Mendelsohn, Reading, ap- Bernard for sought support payments Appellee pellants. support Appellee and at the de- hearing, being nied S.A.J.’s father under oath. Landis, S.S., Reading, Jon P. appel- Thus, Appellee’s privileges visitation were lee. suspended, Appellee essentially had no CAVANAUGH, STEVENS, Before with next contact S.A.J. for the twelve BECK, years. JJ. Husband, and the proceeding, acting 3 Mother and under in the rec- is included Appellee had denial
the reasonable belief However, claiming officially Appellee renounced claim to S.A.J. ord. now hearing, Based on denying paternity support at the father. to be S.A.J.’s father, B.W., avoid- only potential paternity, Appellee had the other has the denial of *3 entire Adoption. support consent to the Petition for child for S.A.J.’s paying ed estoppel particularly Mother and Husband did not have notice is war- life. Judicial Appellee’s custody of until after suc- complaint party’s position ranted was where adoption proceeding. Hospital Mother and Associated cessfully maintained. Pustilnik, Objections in Preliminary Husband filed 497 Philadelphia Service of (1981). 221, custody brought by Appellee. Appellee’s action Pa. Appellee successfully filed a Petition to Vacate of was main- paternity denial court, alleging accepted he was the Adoption by Decree that tained which hearing father of A was held on him from S.A.J. denial of and excused 2, 2001, Thus, in May after which order this claim should support. child question by was entered which vacated the court have been barred lower Therefore, A adoption decree. Petition for Reconsid- we reverse judicial estoppel. order, eration was denied June 2001. This vacated the the lower court’s which timely appeal A followed. Pa.R.A.P. decree.1 1926(b)statement was not ordered nor was ¶6 Appellee requested has that filed. one counsel fees be awarded for costs associat
¶ 4 Mother and Husband contend
Appel
Rules of
appeal.
ed with this
Our
that the trial court erred as a matter of
imposition
allow for the
of
late Procedure
in failing
Appellee
law
to find that
if an
court finds the
appellate
counsel fees
judicially estopped
claiming
from
to be the
solely
to be frivolous or taken
for
appeal
father and entitled to notice and opportu
delay.
pro
Pa.R.A.P. 2744
Specifically,
nity
adoption proceed
to be heard in the
following:
vides the
ing,
in
being
which resulted
the decree
In addition to other costs allowable
vacated.
Assembly,
or Act
an
general rule
of
as further
appellate
may
court
award
¶
Appellee
conclude that
is
We
just, including:
damages may
costs
as
estopped
challenging
from
of
(1) a reasonable counsel fee and
estoppel
S.A.J. Judicial
is a doctrine that
(2)
rate of
damages
delay
for
at the
prohibits
party
taking
position
a
a
legal
in addition to the
per
6% annum
judicial
subsequent
proceeding
a
interest,
party’s position
inconsistent with the
in a
appeal
that an
is frivo-
prior judicial proceeding.
Uni
it determines
Widener
Boettner,
delay or that
solely
taken
versity v. Estate
to estoppel the doctrine of estoppel party proceed- cial when each to a solely against appehee. ing previous contrary has maintained a majority 2 The appel- holds that since position. lee denied in paternity prior support ¶ Regarding prohibition against proceeding, judicially he is estopped from loose,” “playing fast and the lower court’s claiming paternity in the instant matter. regarding comments mother’s actions bear However, in appehant-mother consideration: proceedings appehee made the claim that prior custody was the father. In both and Mother and Mother’s Husband could support proceedings, mother maintained not have been of the solid unaware that appehee was the father of S.A.J. grounds for S.S.’s claim to and Mother position appel- holds the now relationship of his intentions to seek a lee is not S.A.J.’s father. child; yet, with his and in- ¶ A equity basic tenet of is that the properly noticing stead of the most like- it, party who seeks to invoke have must child, ly biological father of the Mother clean hands. “The doctrine of unclean sought Husband out a Mother’s and/or requires seeking equity hands that one act plausible putative father of the child who fairly and without or fraud deceit as to the agreeable giving up would be to all controversy at issue.” Terraciano v. Com- rights might which Mother with or monwealth, 562 Pa. 237- might not have endowed him. Mother (2000). may deprive A court a party notify adoption proceed- did not in this where, equitable relief to the detriment ing previously the man who she had party of the other party, applying claimed to be the father of the child. guilty relief is conduct relating such bad Indeed, testimony if can be Mother’s to the matter at issue. Id. at 237. believed, to chal- open was that ‘there lenge yet ground; another mother herself has made in- Since yet been’ another man who could have prior judicial pro- consistent statements in during relations with her involving custody had sexual ceedings, sup- both and status, yet and no notice port, concerning period, relevant was appellee’s parental even, that man in requisite given personally, she does not have the clean to ¶8 the record convinces My review of the event Mother did not know error name, me that the lower court without by publication to an unknown It did so vacating decree. John Doe. that the be- reluctantly, recognition but paterni- attempts lated of S.S. to establish legal ty improperly were thwarted Mother to appears planned have well machinations, outright if not fraud preclude S.S. even deceit, mother and her husband. opportunity say proceed- for a in these affirmed, and, The there- order should be that, ings likely, in the form of an fore, I dissent. involuntary proceeding. termination In- him simply stead she removed from the
process by conveniently finding someone putative
to act as the father and consent
to the any rights termination of he child,
might have had indeed he see, please,
had fathered same— carefully very worded consent executed Tammy LANGENDORFER, Appellee, *5 indicating B.W. he had been named father, as the and not that he or SPEARMAN, Appellant Caro claimed to be father. (Two Cases). Pennsylvania. of Superior Court door, anyone’s If blame be laid to it is Argued Feb. 2002. to Mother and her in not husband dis- April Filed 2002. closing the full history of the litigation extensive hand-picked their
adoption attorney. In past this searching questions
Court has asked of mothers,
biological rape even in cases of statutory rape, adop- so that when an signed by
tion decree is it can Court
be defended the world. In the case,
instant mother and
adoptive pains father took to conceal Court,
such information from this man appears
from the who it is the
biological father this child. 6/25/01, opinion,
Lower court at 11-13. not Mother should beneficia-
ry equitable of the application doc- judicial estoppel given
trine of her lack of to the court below and her own
candor
conflicting prior pro- made statements concerning status
ceedings appellee.