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).
