In a promising and progressive step, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently provided some guidance on how to define parentage for various family structures. Moving beyond decades of a discriminatory and damaging lack of precedent available to same-sex couples and parents, the decision from In the Interest of A.M., a Minor finally provides the same presumption of paternity afforded to heterosexual couples to all family structures.
In Pennsylvania, if a child is conceived during the course of a heterosexual marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father. That presumption, the presumption of paternity, is one of the strongest known to the law. Historically, the presumption of paternity was reserved only for couples of opposite-sex marriages. However in In the Interest of A.M., a Minor, the Court re-establishes that since same-sex marriages are legal in Pennsylvania, they must be given the same rights and privileges as opposite-sex marriages. Those rights and privileges include standards such as presumptive paternity. Though the Court chose to keep the gendered phrase “presumption of paternity”, they even went so far as to acknowledge that the phrase “did not appropriately reflect the reality of modern families”.
It should be noted that the presumption of paternity is not automatically given to every custody case between couples. In order to receive the presumption of paternity, spouses must demonstrate that their marriage was intact when the child was born. If there is not sufficient evidence that the marriage was intact at the time of the child’s birth, the presumption will not apply. The court will generally look to whether the spouse was at the child’s birth, who—if anyone—is listed on the child’s birth certificate, the residential arrangement of the parents, and the relationship status of the parents (like separations or pending divorce) as evidence of the marriage being intact.
This evidence of an intact marriage is generally not a difficult standard to meet though. The courts have applied the presumption of paternity even in instances where the child could have been the product of the mother’s affair and where the parents were separated and in the process of obtaining a divorce.
Prior to In the Interest of A.M., a Minor, instead of applying the presumption of paternity to custody cases with “non-traditional” couples, the courts would attempt to recreate the same effect applying in loco parentis, parentage by estoppel, and contract law. All of these options forced parents to show more to prove they were the minor’s parent, instead of just showing that the child was born during the marriage.
In extending the presumption of paternity to same-sex couples, the Pennsylvania Superior Court made important strides in bettering a system that recognizes and supports the needs and realities of families today.
