Unborn Child Has Father Who Is Not Biological

[Confused_mom]

And if you want my opinion on a subject, ask me about it. Don't tell me what my opinion is. I think adoptions are great. In fact, I think the OP should look into one and adopt the baby off to a more responsible family. Then they can petition the courts for a TPR for BOTH parties.

I did not start this thread for opinions. None of you know the whole story as to what happened, this baby is a complete accident in the true since of the word, but I am capable of supporting it on my own and merely wish to have the help of my future husband. A mistake was made, but now I want to try and raise this child in the best possible way that I can. It seems like everyone here (besides GV) hasn't provided and credential information and thus most information here is not useful, highly biased and highly speculative.

The mere thought of having that other mans child in me I find repulsive, some people change after a while and become people who you didn't think they were. I have considered putting the child up for adaption, but wouldn't it be better for the child to be at least raised by one loving parent (and hopefully another even though its not biological) then be passed around in foster care among strangers always wondering who there parents are. We have enough children thrown into adoption, it is asinine that you suggest this considering you do not know much of the story.

Thanks for the help, but opinions do not matter, morals do not matter; I only want to know the law.

GV your posts of the code have been incredibly useful, thanks for looking those up for me.

[Baystategirl]

If you list or allow your husband to be listed as "Father" thats fraud. Whether you care about Bio Dad or not yuo cared enough to sleep with him! He has rights not telling bio Dad and/or listing another man as Dad is wrong.

Panther...If the child is born while OP is married he is LEGALLY the father. Period. Now man B (bio-father) can file for paternity and establish his rights but the LEGAL father will be listed on the BC.

[panther10758]

Panther...If the child is born while OP is married he is LEGALLY the father. Period. Now man B (bio-father) can file for paternity and establish his rights but the LEGAL father will be listed on the BC.

Oh I agree Bay but my point was her inmoral attempt to keep the real Father from the child. As CC put it its a backdoor adoption

[Confused_mom]

Oh I agree Bay but my point was her inmoral attempt to keep the real Father from the child. As CC put it its a backdoor adoption

As I stated before opinions are useless. Plus, I haven't told bio-father yet but I have also only known since Thursday and it sounds like LEGALLY I have to tell him so I plan on it, but first want to know the legal rights of all parties.

[panther10758]

He has legal rights (as you have been told) once paternity is established (providing you dont keep this from him) to seek custody/vistation even support! Your attempt at backdoor adoption is just wrong

[Confused_mom]

He has legal rights (as you have been told) once paternity is established (providing you dont keep this from him) to seek custody/vistation even support! Your attempt at backdoor adoption is just wrong

According to the case of Vargo v. Schwartz (2007 Pa Super 402 (12/31/2007):
Under Pennsylvania law, the “presumption of paternity,” i.e., the presumption that a child conceived or born during a marriage is a child of the marriage, has been described by our Supreme Court as "one of the strongest presumptions known to the law." Strauser v. Stahr, 556 Pa. 83, 97, 726 A.2d 1052, 1053-54 (1999). The policy underlying the presumption is the preservation of marriages. Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523, 528, 741 A.2d 721, 723 (1999). Accordingly, our Supreme Court has held that the presumption of paternity applies only where the underlying policy to preserve marriages would be advanced by application of the presumption. Id.; Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 250-51, 701 A.2d 176, 181 (1997) (plurality opinion). When there is no longer an intact family or a marriage to preserve, then the presumption of paternity is not applicable. Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523, 528, 741 A.2d 721, 723 (1999); Brinkley, supra at 250-51, 701 A.2d at 181; Barr v. Bartolo, 927 A.2d. 635, 643 (Pa.Super. 2007) (declining to apply the presumption of paternity in a case where, although the mother and her husband remained married and had not sought a divorce at the time of the paternity hearing, they had been separated for several years and there was no intact family to preserve); Doran v. Doran, 820 A.2d 1279, 1283 (Pa.Super. 2003) (concluding that the presumption of paternity did not apply to a case in which the mother and her husband had separated and a divorce action was pending prior to the support hearing); Sekol v. Delsantro, 763 A.2d 405, 409 (Pa.Super. 2000) (same); cf. Strauser, supra at 91, 726 A.2d at 1055-56 (concluding that the presumption of paternity did apply in a case where the mother and her husband had never separated and, despite their marital difficulties and the mother's infidelity, had chosen to preserve their marriage); E.W. v. T.S., 916 A.2d 1197, 1204 (Pa.Super. 2007) (affirming the trial court's application of the presumption of paternity in a case where the mother and her husband had not lived apart at any time after their marriage and had never filed a divorce complaint, and the husband had fulfilled the duties of a father in the family).

Under Pennsylvania law, the presumption of paternity is unrebuttable when, at the time the husband's paternity is challenged, mother, her husband, and the child comprise an intact family wherein the husband has assumed parental responsibilities for the child. Id. at 1201. Under other circumstances, the presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that either of the following circumstances was true at the time of conception: the presumptive father, i.e., the husband, was physically incapable of procreation because of impotency or sterility, or the presumptive father had no access to his wife, i.e., the spouses were physically separated and thus were unable to have had sexual relations. Strauser, supra at 88, 726 A.2d at 1054; Brinkley, supra at 248; 701 A.2d at 179; Barnard v. Anderson, 767 A.2d 592, 594 (Pa.Super. 2001). In Pennsylvania, impotency/sterility and non-access constitute the only ways to rebut the presumption of paternity. Brinkley, supra at 248, 701 A.2d at 179; Barnard, supra at 594; see also Brinkley, supra at 260-61, 701 A.2d at 185-86 (Newman, J., dissenting). Notably, blood tests cannot be offered to rebut the presumption of paternity. Jones v. Trojak, 535 Pa. 95, 105, 634 A.2d 201, 206 (1993) ("A court may order blood tests to determine paternity only when the presumption of paternity has been overcome ... by proof of facts establishing non-access or impotency."); E.W., supra at 1202-03, 1204; Barnard, supra at 594 (quoting Strauser, supra at 88, 726 A.2d at 1054); see also Brinkley, supra at 261-65, 701 A.2d at 186-88 (Newman, J., dissenting) ("Pennsylvania is fast becoming one of only a minority of states that does not accept the results of blood tests that disprove the husband's paternity to rebut the presumption [of paternity]."); Strauser, supra at 93, 726 A.2d at 1056 (Nigro, J., dissenting) (observing that "the strict application of the presumption [of paternity] doctrine has only acted as an obstacle to the discretion of the trial court to order and use blood testing of the parties" to determine paternity). A number of dissenting voices notwithstanding, it remains the law of this Commonwealth that "[a] court may order blood tests to determine paternity only when the presumption of paternity has been overcome" by proof of either impotency/sterility or non-access. Brinkley, supra at 247, 701 A.2d at 179 (citation omitted).


Thus as long as I am married when paternity is disputed nothing will happen since my soon-to-be husband is fertile and with me at time of conception. I feel very lucky to be living in PA, what a great state to preserve families.