## Facts

- A husband and wife married in 1966 and had two sons during the marriage.
- In 1977, while still married, the wife gave birth to a daughter.
- About three months after the daughter’s birth, the husband learned information indicating he was probably not the child’s biological father.
- The husband confronted the wife, moved out, and later lived out of state, but the marriage continued for several more years.
- Despite doubts about biological paternity, the husband continued to act as the child’s father and provided emotional and material support.
- The parties entered a separation agreement providing the wife custody and the husband child support obligations and visitation.
- A later divorce decree treated all children as born of the marriage based on the parties’ stipulation.
- Years later, custody and support litigation was brought in New Jersey; the husband sought custody and, alternatively, relief from support for the daughter based on nonpaternity.
- The trial court held the husband was the child’s father “for all purposes” and that equitable estoppel barred him from denying a support duty; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a husband who knew he was probably not a child’s biological father, but who held himself out as the father and undertook support obligations, may later deny paternity to avoid child support.
2. Whether equitable estoppel may impose continuing child support obligations on a stepparent/nonbiological spouse based on prior conduct and voluntary commitments.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division because the Court was equally divided.
- The affirmance left in place the order requiring the husband to continue supporting the child.
- The operative basis for the support obligation was equitable estoppel, given the husband’s sustained parental conduct and formal commitments treating the child as born of the marriage.

## Legal Principles

- Equitable estoppel may bar a spouse/stepparent from repudiating a prior voluntary undertaking to support a child when the adult has acted as a parent and induced reliance.
- A support obligation may be enforced against a nonbiological parent figure when that person knowingly assumed the parental role, represented parentage in agreements or judgments, and the child and custodial parent relied on that representation.
- In child support disputes, courts may prioritize protection of the child from financial and relational harm caused by a parent figure’s later disavowal of assumed responsibilities.
- When the state supreme court is equally divided, the intermediate appellate judgment is affirmed without a controlling majority rationale.

## Conclusion

The court’s equal division resulted in affirmance of an order requiring continued child support, applying equitable estoppel to prevent a nonbiological husband who knowingly assumed and maintained a parental role—and memorialized that role in formal instruments—from later denying responsibility to support the child.


M.H.B. v. H.T.B., 498 A.2d 775 (N.J. 1985)