Doran v. Doran

• Decision Date: 28 March 2003
• Citation: 820 A.2d 1279
• Parties: Pamela DORAN n/k/a Pamela Smigiel, Appellant, v. William J. DORAN, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

820 A.2d 1279

Pamela DORAN n/k/a Pamela Smigiel, Appellant, v. William J. DORAN, Appellee.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued January 14, 2003.

Filed March 28, 2003.

Gregory S. Skibitsky, Pittston, for appellant.

Elliot B. Edley, Wilkes Barre, for appellee.

BEFORE: STEVENS, GRACI, and OLSZEWSKI, JJ.

OPINION BY GRACI, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Pamela Doran, now known as Pamela Smigiel ("Smigiel"), appeals from the order entered on June 13, 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, granting the petition filed by Appellee, William Jr. Doran ("Doran"), to dismiss a child support order but denying the request for an award in the amount of the previously paid support. After careful review, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 In its decision, the trial court provided the background of this case as follows:

This matter [came] before the [trial court] on a petition, filed by the Defendant, William J. Doran, to dismiss a child support obligation based upon an agreement of support dated August 24, 1994, and made an Order of Court on August 31st of that year. The Defendant's Petition to Dismiss was filed October 26, 2001, nearly eleven and one-half years after the birth of the child for whom he pays support.

During the course of the parties' marriage, and while the parties were cohabiting as husband and wife, a child was conceived. William Doran, Jr. was born on March 19, 1990. Nearly four years later, Pamela Doran, now known as Pamela Smigiel, filed a Complaint in Divorce, after which the parties separated. A Divorce Decree was entered on May 12, 1995, just before the child's fifth birthday. After separating, the parties entered into a support agreement on August 24, 1994, whereupon the husband became obligated to pay child support. Unbeknownst to the husband, and for over a decade thereafter, at the time the child was conceived, his wife had been having sexual relations with another man. Having no reason to suspect that the child was not his; the husband raised the child as his own, supporting him as any decent, responsible parent would.

In 1996, however, according to the testimony of the mother, the true biological father of the child, her former paramour, stopped at her ex-husband's house for reasons never explained. When Mr. Doran asked his ex-wife if Billy was his child, the mother told him, "Yes". (H.R.33-34). Satisfied with the answer, Mr. Doran continued to support and treat Billy as his own child until late in the [sic] 2000 or early in 2001 when it became apparent to him that the child's appearance, mannerisms and other indicators gave him reason to believe that the child was nothing like him at all; prompting a second inquiry to his ex-wife of the child's paternity. (H.R.49, 55). Convincing his ex-wife to undergo DNA testing because of these suspicions, the results, issued March 14, 2001, proved conclusively that Mr. Doran was not the child's father. The probability of paternity was zero percent!

Not wanting to direct his anger or point any blame at the child who was, himself, going through a hailstorm of emotion and heartache at the time, Mr. Doran tried to convince his ex-wife that, together, they should sit down and talk with Billy. The mother, however, decided for the first time to tell her son the truth by herself. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Doran as gently as possible removed himself from the child's life in a way which he felt would cause the child the least amount of anguish and hurt.

In filing his Petition to Dismiss the support obligation, Mr. Doran argued[d] that under the devastating circumstances of this wife's infidelity, deception and intentional decision to keep the true facts surrounding the circumstances of the child's conception to herself, he was made a cuckold by her and mislead [sic] to believe that he was the biological father of the child—a fact which now has been scientifically disproved beyond doubt. To prevent any further injustice to him, he request[ed] that the ... child support order be dismissed and that he be entitled to recover all of the child support paid to his ex-wife...

Decision, 6/13/02, at 1-3.

¶ 3 On June 13, 2002, the trial court granted Doran's petition to dismiss the child support order but denied his request for an award in the amount of the previously paid support.

¶ 4 On July 3, 2002, Smigiel filed a notice of appeal. Smigiel raises the following issues on appeal:

Was it reversible error for the lower court to grant the petition to dismiss support matter filed by the appellee, where the parties' minor child, William Doran, Jr., was conceived and born during that period of time when the parties to the above captioned cause of action were still united in marriage and residing together as husband and wife and continued to do so for a period of almost four (4) years subsequent to the minor child's birth?

* * *

Was it reversible error for the lower court to grant the petition to dismiss support matter filed by the appellee, where the appellee, despite substantial and compelling evidence that the appellee maintained suspicions as to the minor child's paternity for many years, held the child out to the public as his son, nurtured and maintained a father/son relationship with the child for many years, and continued to do so by his own admission even after the appellee knew he was not the child's biological father?

* * *

Was it reversible error for the lower court to grant the petition to dismiss support matter filed by the appellee where the lower court's decision to do so is contrary to the established precedent relative to the doctrines of `presumption of paternity' and `estoppel' for purposes of paternity and/or support matters?

* * *

Appellant's Brief, at 3.

II. DISCUSSION

¶ 5 Smigiel essentially argues that the trial court should not have granted Doran's petition to dismiss child support since the presumption of paternity applies to the instant case. However, she further argues, if the presumption of paternity does not apply to the instant case, estoppel does.

¶ 6 "In matters involving support, a reviewing court will not disturb an order of the trial court unless there has been an abuse of discretion." Diehl v. Beaver, 444 Pa.Super. 91, 663 A.2d 232, 233 (1995) (citations omitted). "An abuse of discretion exists if the trial court has overridden or misapplied the law, or if there is insufficient evidence to sustain the order." Id. (citations omitted). Moreover, "[r]esolution of factual issues is for the trial court, and a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's findings if they are supported by competent evidence." Id. at 234 (citations omitted). "It is not enough that we, if sitting as a trial court, may have made a different finding." Id.

¶ 7 In Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 701 A.2d 176, 180 (1997), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court set forth the analysis required to determine the paternity of a child conceived or born during a marriage:

[T]he essential legal analysis in these cases is twofold: first one considers whether the presumption of paternity applies to a particular case. If it does, one then considers whether the presumption has been rebutted. Second, if the presumption has been rebutted or is inapplicable, one then questions whether estoppel applies. Estoppel may bar either a plaintiff from making the claim or a defendant from denying paternity. If the presumption has been rebutted or does not apply, and if the facts of the case include estoppel evidence, such evidence must be considered.

¶ 8 We must first determine if the presumption of paternity applies to the instant case. "The policy underlying the presumption of paternity is the preservation of marriages." Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523, 741 A.2d 721, 723 (1999). "The presumption only applies in cases where that policy would be advanced by the application; otherwise, it does not apply." Id. (citation omitted). In this case, there is no longer an intact family or a marriage to preserve. Smigiel and Doran separated and a divorce action was pending prior to the hearing in the support matter instituted by Smigiel against Doran. Accordingly, the presumption of paternity is not applicable.

¶ 9 Having concluded that the presumption is inapplicable, we must determine whether Doran is estopped from denying paternity. "A (former) husband may be estopped from denying paternity of a child born during a marriage if either he or his wife holds the child out to be the child of the marriage." Weidman v. Weidman, 808 A.2d 576, 577-78 (Pa.Super.2002) (citation omitted).

Estoppel in paternity actions is merely the legal determination that because of a person's conduct (e.g., holding out the child as his own, or supporting the child) that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will the child's mother who has participated in this conduct be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the true father. As the Superior Court has observed, the doctrine of estoppel in paternity actions is aimed at "achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct regarding the paternity of the child."

Fish, 741 A.2d at 723 (citation omitted).

¶ 10 In the instant case, Doran admitted that he held the child out as his own from the child's birth in 1990...