Evolving standards of what constitutes a family are reflected in recent decisions in the Pennsylvania appellate courts. Determinations of paternity, i.e., who has parental responsibility for a child, typically involve two separate and distinct legal theories: the presumption of paternity and paternity by estoppel. These two theories of law are frequently confused although they serve very different purposes and should be analyzed separately.
The presumption of paternity is the presumption that a child who is born to an intact marriage is a child of that marriage. It is an ancient legal concept explored extensively by Sir William Blackstone in his “Commentaries on the Law of England” and the principle perhaps pre-dates early English common law. Historically, the presumption was intended to protect marriages from outside attack and also to spare the child the societal stigma of “illegitimacy,” as in Strauser v. Stahr, 726 A. 2d 176 (Pa. 1997). The presumption of paternity only applies to intact marriages and not in situations where the parties are separated or divorced, since applying the doctrine in those circumstances would not further the purpose of the presumption, as in Brinkley v. King, 701 A.2d 1052 (Pa. 1997).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
