B.C. v. C.P.

310 A.3d 721

B.C., Appellee

v.C.P. and D.B., Appellants

No. 8 WAP 2023

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted: August 25, 2023

Decided: January 29, 2024

Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 6, 2023, at No. 515 WDA 2022, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas Westmoreland County entered April 18, 2022, at No. 1494 of 2021-D, Jim Silvis, Judge

George Christopher Miller Jr., Esq., for Appellants.

Blake Cavanaugh, for Appellee.

TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY JJ.

OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE TODD

[1, 2] There is a strong presumption in Pennsylvania jurisprudence that a child conceived or born in a marriage is a child of the marriage, and a party challenging the paternity of a child born during a marriage must overcome that presumption. Due to societal changes which have occurred since the presumption’s adoption, this Court has limited its application to cases where its underlying policy — the preservation of marriages — is furthered. This Court granted allowance of appeal to determine whether the lower courts erred by relying primarily upon the marital couple’s multiple periods of separation prior to the filing of the underlying paternity action in concluding that the presumption was inapplicable, notwithstanding that the couple had reconciled by the time the paternity action was filed. For the reasons set forth herein, we answer this inquiry in the affirmative, and hold that a marital couple’s separation prior to the filing of the paternity action does not, per se, preclude application of the presumption of paternity. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Superior Court, and remand to the trial court with instructions.

At the outset, we observe that Appellee B.C., who filed the paternity action herein, has not participated in this appeal,¹ and has never challenged the continued viability of the presumption of paternity, which, although entrenched in our jurisprudence for centuries, has been the subject of considerable criticism in the modern age. Thus, we emphasize that we are deciding this appeal as it is presented to us, and are determining only whether the lower court’s application of the unchallenged presumption violates the precedent of this Court. We conclude that it does. We do not address whether the presumption of paternity, which again, as a general doctrine is unchallenged here, should be reconsidered.

I. Background

The record establishes that Appellants C.P. ("Mother") and D.B. ("Husband") were married on September 30, 2016. Mother met Appellee B.C. the following year when they were both seeking treatment for addiction at the Greenbriar Treatment Center. Mother and B.C. reconnected and began communicating through social media in Spring 2018. In July of that year, Mother and Husband separated; Husband left the marital home and Mother remained. B.C. visited Mother’s residence three times in October 2018, and during at least one of those occasions they had unprotected sexual intercourse. Shortly thereafter, at the end of October, Mother and Husband reconciled, and they also had unprotected sex. On November 4, 2018, Husband moved back into the marital home, and the couple continued their intimate relationship.

Mother did not experience signs of pregnancy until March 2019, and was unable to pinpoint when her child was conceived.² Upon discovering that she was pregnant, she told Husband that the child was his. After B.C. learned on social media that Mother was pregnant, the two corresponded, and Mother initially advised B.C. that he was not the father of her child. During Mother’s pregnancy, Husband accompanied Mother to prenatal appointments and assumed the duties of an expectant father. While married to Husband, Mother then gave birth to a son ("Child") on June 18, 2019, and Husband was listed as the father on Child’s birth certificate. However, after the birth, Mother brought Child to visit B.C., and in August 2019, told B.C. that he was Child’s biological father.³ Subsequently, B.C. began seeing Child on a weekly basis, babysitting him while Mother worked long shifts as a registered nurse.

In March or April 2020, when Child was approximately nine months old, Mother and Husband separated for the second time. Mother then moved into B.C.’s home with Child, and Mother and B.C. shared parental and financial duties relating to Child. During this time, Mother told B.C.’s friends and family that B.C. was Child’s father. Nevertheless, Mother took Child to see Husband on the weekends. B.C. did not object to Mother allowing Husband to see Child, as he felt sympathy towards Husband. The relationship between Mother and B.C. ended abruptly on August 13, 2020, when B.C. assaulted Mother,⁴ after which Mother and Child returned to live in the marital home, and Mother and Husband reconciled. The last time that B.C. had contact with Child was in November 2020, when Mother and Child visited B.C. in the rehabilitation center where he was residing at the time.

Husband and Mother separated for a third and final time for a period of approximately five weeks in December 2020 and January 2021, after Husband filed for divorce and his counsel suggested that Mother move out of the marital home while a custody order was crafted. Consequently, the trial court entered a custody order awarding shared legal and physical custody of Child to Mother and Husband. B.C. remained in the rehabilitation facility during the litigation of the custody matter and did not seek to intervene. Husband and Mother once again reconciled, and chose not to proceed with the divorce. Mother moved back into the marital home on January 13, 2021, and the couple have remained together since that time.

On August 27, 2021, B.C. filed a complaint to establish paternity and for genetic testing of Child. In response, Appellants jointly filed an answer and new matter, which contained a motion to dismiss B.C.’s complaint with prejudice, contending that the presumption of paternity applied to preserve their intact family unit. As explained infra, the presumption that a child conceived or born during a marriage is a child of the marriage may be rebutted by evidence establishing that either the husband did not have access to his wife during the period of possible conception or that the husband was impotent or sterile; where the marriage is intact, the presumption is irrebuttable. The trial court held a hearing on April 11, 2022, at which B.C., Mother, and Husband testified to the aforementioned events.

Additionally, Mother testified that she and Husband have been together since January 2021, prior to the filing of the paternity action, and that she did not contemplate any future separations because the marriage was working. N.T., 4/11/2022, at 42. Viewing the circumstances retrospectively, Mother believed that the marital issues resulted from depression and anxiety that she was experiencing at the times of the separations. Mother further explained that Child has special needs and was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder level 3 and global delay disorder. Describing Husband as a "wonderful parent" and "truly a great father," Mother asserted that Child is Husband’s number one priority, that Husband tends to Child in the middle of the night, and that Husband takes Child to his doctor appointments and therapy sessions. Id. at 39. Mother elaborated that Husband is Child’s "person," as demonstrated by the fact that when Child is inconsolable, he turns to Husband, who has "endless patience and kindness" for Child, "loves [Child] so much," and "is unbelievably bonded" to Child. Id. at 41-42. Mother concluded that she and Husband are doing very well raising their son. Id. at 42.

Husband corroborated Mother’s testimony and detailed his extensive parental duties. Id. at 56. Husband further asserted that he never believed that B.C. was Child’s father, and never acquiesced to having B.C. act in a parental capacity. Id. at 57-58. When asked about his relationship with Mother and their family unit, Husband acknowledged the tumultuous periods, but expressed love for Mother and Child, confirming that he had no concerns of a future separation with Mother, as he found that the trials and tribulations they experienced together made their marriage stronger. Id. at 59-60. When questioned whether the injection of a third party as an additional parental figure to Child would impact his family unit, Husband responded, "[d]efinitely," finding the proposition "utterly preposterous." Id. at 59.

Finally, B.C., appearing pro se at the hearing, testified that the time of Child’s conception corresponded with the time of his sexual relationship with Mother. He maintained that, after Mother informed him that he was Child’s father, he saw Child regularly and shared parental duties, until Mother ended the relationship. B.C. asserted that he did not seek to intervene in Child’s custody action because he was seeking inpatient care at a rehabilitation facility when the matter was litigated. B.C. did not attempt to refute Appellants’ contention that their marriage was, at that time, intact. Lastly, B.C. argued that the court should grant his request for genetic testing because he believes he is Child’s father, he wants to take responsibility for his son, and he wants to save Child from suffering trauma later in life if he discovers that his true parentage is different from what he had been led to believe.

II. Lower Court Decisions

[3] By order dated April 14, 2022, the trial court denied Appellants’ motion to dismiss the paternity action, and directed all parties and Child to appear at the domestic relations office for paternity testing on May 3, 2022. Appellants filed an appeal to the Superior Court, and the trial court filed its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on May 27, 2022.⁵ Initially, the trial court observed that, when examining paternity, the court considers whether the presumption of paternity applies to the particular case and, if so, whether...