## Facts

- Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob and Jodilynn Jacob cohabited for about nine years, held a commitment ceremony, and later entered a Vermont civil union.
- During the relationship, Jacob adopted two children (A.J. and L.J.), who were her nephews.
- Jacob conceived two additional children (Co.J. and Ca.J.) using sperm from Carl Frampton, a known donor and long-time friend of Shultz-Jacob.
- Frampton remained involved in Co.J.’s and Ca.J.’s lives from birth, including regular contact, encouraging them to call him “Papa,” and contributing financially.
- After the relationship ended, Jacob relocated with all four children from York County to Dauphin County.
- Shultz-Jacob filed a custody action in York County seeking sole legal and primary physical custody of all four children and named Jacob and Frampton as defendants.
- A York County interim order awarded Jacob legal and primary physical custody of all four children, partial physical custody to Shultz-Jacob, and shared custody of Co.J. and Ca.J. with Frampton.
- In Dauphin County, Jacob filed for child support from Shultz-Jacob for Co.J. and Ca.J. and obtained an order of roughly $983 per month.
- Shultz-Jacob sought de novo review and moved to join Frampton in the support case as an additional obligor; the Dauphin County court denied joinder.
- After custody trial, York County entered a three-party custody arrangement among Jacob, Shultz-Jacob, and Frampton, including partial physical custody to Frampton for Co.J. and Ca.J.

## Issues

1. Whether the custody court abused its discretion in structuring custody among Jacob, Shultz-Jacob, and Frampton based on the children’s best interests.
2. Whether the support court erred by refusing to join Frampton as a party and potential additional obligor in the support action.
3. Whether a known sperm donor who acted in a parent-like role may be held financially responsible for support under equitable estoppel.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the custody disposition in substantial part, concluding the trial court’s best-interests findings supported continued involvement of all three adults.
- The Superior Court vacated the support order and remanded.
- The court held that, on these facts, equitable estoppel could render the known sperm donor financially responsible as an additional support obligor.
- The court directed the trial court on remand to join Frampton in the support proceeding and to determine and allocate support among the parties.

## Legal Principles

- Custody orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion; appellate courts defer to trial court fact-finding and credibility determinations when supported by the record and tied to the child’s best interests.
- Equitable estoppel may prevent a person who has acted as a parent and induced reliance from later denying parental responsibilities to avoid child-support obligations.
- In the absence of controlling legislation governing assisted conception and the allocation of rights and duties among participants, courts may apply existing equitable doctrines to assign support responsibility consistent with the child’s welfare.
- Child-support law may permit allocation among more than two obligors when the circumstances and equitable principles justify treating an additional adult as responsible for the child’s support.

## Conclusion

The court largely sustained a custody arrangement recognizing the established relationships between the children and three adults, and it held that a known sperm donor who affirmatively functioned as a parent may be estopped from disclaiming financial responsibility; the support order was vacated and remanded for joinder of the donor and apportionment of support.


Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, 923 A.2d 473 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)