Edward v. Oyelakin

1

HANNAH O. EDWARD v. OYEKUNLE S. OYELAKIN Appellant

No. 2144 EDA 2023

No. J-A10045-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 4, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered July 24, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations at No(s) 20-05641

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., BECK, J., and COLINS, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

COLINS, J.

Oyekunle S. Oyelakin ("Father") appeals, pro se from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Domestic Relations Division ("trial court") adjudicating him the biological and legal father of O.S.O. ("Child") and lifting a hold on distribution of Father's child support payments to Olusola Hannah Edward ("Mother").^[1] After careful review, we affirm.

Child was born in 2010 in Norristown, Pennsylvania, to Mother and Father, who never married. Mother and Child currently live in Ireland, while Father resides in Philadelphia. On March 11, 2020, Mother filed in the trial court a complaint for support against Father pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 7101-7903. Child Support Complaint, 3/11/20; see 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 7101.1, 7105, 77A05 (providing that the Act applies to requests for child support brought by a citizen of a nation state that is a party to the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance). An interim support order was established requiring Father to pay $1,156.76 monthly in current support plus $115.67 monthly in arrears, effective from the date of filing of the complaint. Order, 9/11/20. On May 12, 2021, a proposed support order was issued dismissing the child support complaint and vacating the earlier support order based upon lack of prosecution; Mother filed exceptions, and the support obligation was ultimately reinstated at $1,376.13 plus $100 in arrears per month, in an interim proposed support order filed on January 11, 2022. Order, 1/11/22; Order, 10/19/21; Mother's Support Exceptions, 6/1/21; Order, 5/12/21.

On January 31, 2022, Father filed exceptions to the January 11, 2022 interim order. Father's Support Exceptions, 1/31/22. Father subsequently also filed a motion to establish paternity of Child and preliminary objections to Mother's child support complaint. Preliminary Objections, 8/25/22; Petition to Determine/Establish Paternity and for Genetic Testing, 7/25/22.

On May 17, 2022, parallel with the instant proceedings, Father filed a petition to amend Child's birth certificate, which was docketed at No. BC2205002 ("Birth Certificate Matter"). Petition to Amend Birth Certificate, No. BC2205002, 5/17/22.^[2] The petition alleged that Mother "[k]nowingly and willfully . . . listed a fake name [on Child's birth certificate] of 'Olusola Hannah Edward' while [Mother's] legal name at birth is 'Olusola Hannah Ajayi.'" Id. at 1. After a September 1, 2022 evidentiary hearing at which Father and Mother testified, the Honorable Leanne Litwin entered an order dismissing the petition on the basis of Mother's testimony that her name was Olusola Hannah Edward and the fact that her passport listed the same name. Order, No. BC2205002, 9/1/22; N.T., 9/1/22, at 18-19. Father filed a petition for reconsideration, which the court denied. Motion for Reconsideration, No. BC2205002, 9/20/23; Order, No. BC2205002, 9/23/22. Father did not file a notice of appeal from the dismissal of his petition to amend Child's birth certificate.

On November 15, 2022, Judge Litwin^[3] overruled Father's preliminary objections, concluding, in part, that further litigation with respect to Mother's alleged misrepresentations concerning her legal name was precluded based upon the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata as the issue was previously resolved in the Birth Certificate Matter. Order, 11/15/22; see also Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/23, at 2; N.T, 11/15/22, 8, 25. Judge Litwin's November 15, 2022 order also referred Father and Child for genetic testing. Order, 11/15/22.

On March 3, 2023, the Honorable Holly J. Ford of the trial court entered an order denying Father's exceptions to the January 11, 2022 proposed support order. Order, 3/3/23. To the extent Father's exceptions relied on allegations regarding Mother's use of false names, the trial court concluded that any consideration of this issue was barred from relitigation due to Judge Litwin's ruling in the Birth Certificate Matter. N.T., 3/3/23, at 7, 11. The March 3, 2023 order also placed a hold on all child support payments Father was making to Mother until paternity of Child was resolved. Order, 3/3/23.^[4]

Following the return of paternity test results indicating Father's parentage of Child, Judge Ford entered the order currently under review on July 24, 2023. Order, 7/24/23; DNA Test Report, 3/31/23 (establishing

Father's probability of paternity of Child at 99.99999999%). This order adjudicated Father the biological and legal father of Child; directed the Pennsylvania Department of Health to amend Child's birth certificate to reflect that Father is Child's father; lifted the March 3, 2023 distribution hold on child support payments Father had already made; and directed that all future support payments be sent to Mother. Order, 7/24/23. Father filed a timely notice of appeal from this order. Notice of Appeal, 8/18/23.^[5]Father raises the following issues on appeal:

[1.] Did Judge Litwin commit an abuse of discretion when she misused the doctrine of technical res judicata and collateral estoppel despite material acts of deceit and fraud on the [c]ourt by [Mother]?

[2.] Did Judge Litwin commit due process errors that prevented [Father] from fully and fairly presenting his case?

Father's Brief at 4. Our review of support orders is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion and whether there is competent evidence to support the order. M.E.W. v. W.L.W., 240 A.3d 626, 634 (Pa. Super. 2020); Ileiwat v. Labadi, 233 A.3d 853, 859-60 (Pa. Super. 2020).

Both of Father's appellate issues, which we address together, concern the trial court's application of res judicata and collateral estoppel at the hearing on his preliminary objections to bar him from relitigating the issue of whether Mother used the false identity of Olusola Hannah Edward in Child's birth certificate, the child support complaint, and other documents. We note that while Father refers to both technical res judicata and collateral estoppel in his brief, the latter doctrine, often referred to as issue preclusion, is most apt in the present case. See In re Coatesville Area School District, 244 A.3d 373, 378-79 n.5 (Pa. 2021) (stating that res judicata is an "umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion," or technical res judicata, and issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel).

This Court has stated that collateral estoppel "operates to prevent a question of law or issue of fact which has once been litigated and fully determined in a court of competent jurisdiction." Gross o/b/o I.M. v. Mintz, 321 A.3d 1005, 1011 (Pa. Super. 2024) (quoting Moyer v. Shaffer, 305 A.3d 1064, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2023)) (emphasis omitted). Collateral estoppel will apply only where (1) the issue is the same as in the prior litigation; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the earlier case; (3) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior action; (4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted, or the party to which it was in privity, had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding; and (5) resolution of the issue in the prior proceeding was essential to the judgment. Coatesville Area School District, 244 A.3d at 379; Gross, 321 A.3d at 1011. Application of the collateral estoppel doctrine is a question of law as to which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Gross, 321 A.3d at 1010; Moyer, 305 A.3d at 1067.

There is no dispute that four of the five collateral estoppel elements are satisfied in this case. Father was a party to the prior action as he filed the petition to amend Child's birth certificate.^[6] The question of whether Mother was using a false identity was essential to the earlier judgment, and indeed the only issue raised in Father's petition. Further, as discussed above, Judge Litwin entered a final order denying Father's petition to amend Child's birth certificate on the merits, and Father did not file a notice of appeal therefrom. See Order, No. BC2205002, 9/1/22; Gardner v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 100 A.3d 280, 282-83 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to file a timely appeal from a final order results in that order having preclusive effect in future litigation). Additionally, the issue Father raised in the Birth Certificate Matter is the same issue he raised in his preliminary objections and exceptions in the instant proceeding. While Father sought different relief in the prior proceeding-namely to amend Mother's name as listed on Child's birth certificate-and focused his claims on the alleged misstatement in the birth certificate itself, Father's factual arguments and theory were identical to what he sought to raise on preliminary objections and in his exceptions in the instant matter, as well as what he argues in this appeal. Father has consistently alleged that Olusola Hannah Edward, Mother's listed name on Child's birth certificate, the child support complaint, and her Irish passport, is a false identity and that she adopted the fake surname of Edward and a made- up birthdate sometime after she left her native Nigeria and before Child's birth. See Father's Brief at 21-31; Petition to Amend Birth Certificate, No. BC2205002, 5/17/22, ¶4; Father's...