Glover v. Severino
2008 Pa. Super. 51, 946 A.2d 710, 2008 Pa. Super. LEXIS 208 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mother's failure to disclose the existence of other potential biological fathers constitutes fraud, which precludes the application of paternity by estoppel to hold a man legally responsible as a father, especially where a substantial parent-child bond has not been formed.
Facts:
- In 1994, Pericles A. Severino, Sr. and Selena Y. Glover, students at Millersville University, had a brief sexual relationship.
- Shortly after their relationship ended, Glover informed Severino she was pregnant and that he was the father, despite having had other sexual partners during the time of conception.
- When the child, P.J., was born on February 21, 1995, Severino visited the hospital and signed the birth certificate as the father.
- Over the next several years, Severino had infrequent contact with the child, attending a few birthday parties and occasionally bringing gifts, but never lived with him.
- Glover rekindled a relationship with a former boyfriend whom she later married, and this man acted as the child's primary father figure, whom the child called 'Dad.'
- In 2006, Severino obtained a private paternity test which conclusively excluded him as P.J.'s biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- In July 1995, Selena Y. Glover filed a complaint for support against Pericles A. Severino, Sr. in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- Severino completed paperwork related to the support complaint which included an acknowledgement of paternity.
- In 1997, Severino filed a petition for partial custody of the child, which resulted in a court order granting him visitation.
- On October 25, 2006, the trial court entered a support modification order, prompting Severino to demand a hearing and raise the issue of paternity for the first time.
- The trial court ordered genetic testing, which confirmed Severino was not the child's biological father.
- A hearing on the issue of paternity by estoppel was held on April 20, 2007.
- On April 25, 2007, the trial court entered an order finding that Severino was estopped from denying paternity.
- Severino (Appellant) filed a timely appeal of the trial court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court), with Glover as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of paternity by estoppel apply to prevent a man from challenging his legal paternity after genetic testing proves he is not the biological father, where the mother failed to disclose that she had other sexual partners during the period of conception and where the man had only sporadic contact with the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelly, J.
No. The doctrine of paternity by estoppel does not apply because the mother's conduct constituted fraud, and there was no substantial parent-child relationship to protect. The mother's failure to disclose that other men could be the father is a misrepresentation by silence that amounts to fraud, regardless of her subjective belief that Severino was the father. This fraud induced Severino to acknowledge paternity. Furthermore, the core purpose of estoppel is to protect a child from the trauma of losing a substantive father figure, but here, Severino's contact was minimal and the child viewed another man (the mother's husband) as the father who was 'there for him every day.' Applying estoppel would unjustly punish Severino for the mother's deception and reward her for perpetrating the fraud.
Dissenting - Klein, J.
Yes. The doctrine of paternity by estoppel should apply because there was no fraud, and Severino accepted the role of father for over a decade. Severino testified that he knew Glover had other sexual partners at the time of conception, so he could not have justifiably relied on her representation that he was the father. Because his reliance was not justifiable, a key element of fraud is missing. Despite knowing he might not be the father, Severino signed the birth certificate, acknowledged paternity, sought custody, and paid support for twelve years. His long-standing conduct of accepting financial and legal responsibility for the child should estop him from now denying paternity, regardless of the strength of their emotional bond.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of paternity by estoppel by emphasizing the impact of fraud, specifically defining a mother's silence about other potential fathers as a fraudulent omission. It establishes that a finding of such fraud can override the estoppel doctrine, preventing it from being used to enforce a parental relationship that was founded on a misrepresentation. The ruling also reinforces that estoppel's primary purpose is to protect a substantial, existing parent-child relationship, suggesting that minimal contact or financial support alone may be insufficient to invoke the doctrine, especially in the presence of fraud. This case provides a significant precedent for putative fathers seeking to disestablish paternity years later based on the mother's lack of candor.
