## Facts

- Mother and Robert had an intermittent relationship from 2002 to 2003 and reconciled in March 2004 after a separation.
- During the separation, Mother had a sexual relationship with M.K., who later proved to be the child’s biological father.
- When Mother disclosed her pregnancy to Robert, she told him there was a “50–50” chance that Robert was not the biological father.
- Mother and Robert agreed Robert would raise the child and agreed not to pursue genetic testing.
- M.K., a National Guard member, was deployed overseas and was not informed of the pregnancy or birth.
- After the child’s birth in November 2004, Mother and Robert signed a statutory acknowledgment of paternity, and Robert was listed as father on the birth certificate.
- Mother and Robert lived with the child for about a year; after they separated, Robert filed for custody.
- Genetic testing during custody litigation excluded Robert as the biological father; Mother then notified M.K., who tested and was confirmed as the biological father.
- M.K. moved to set aside the acknowledgment; the trial court rescinded it for fraud and adjudicated M.K. the child’s father, reserving whether Robert could later seek custody/visitation on a non-parent theory.
- Robert appealed the rescission and adjudication.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly rescinded the acknowledgment of paternity on the ground of fraud, despite Robert’s knowledge that he might not be the biological father.
2. Whether the trial court properly adjudicated M.K. as the child’s legal father after genetic confirmation.
3. Whether Robert’s voluntary assumption of a parental role and relationship with the child barred rescission or otherwise limited M.K.’s ability to establish paternity.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the order rescinding the acknowledgment of paternity and adjudicating M.K. as the child’s father.
- The court held the record supported a finding that the acknowledgment was procured by fraud.
- The court rejected Robert’s challenge that no fraud was shown, deferring to the trial court’s supported factual findings and credibility determinations.
- The court treated custody/visitation standing for Robert as a separate, unresolved matter left for later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A voluntary acknowledgment of paternity under Pennsylvania law has the effect of a paternity judgment but may be set aside on limited grounds, including fraud.
- Fraud may be found where parties execute an acknowledgment while knowingly disregarding substantial paternity uncertainty and conceal the pregnancy and birth from a likely biological father, using the acknowledgment to block that father’s opportunity to assert paternity.
- A signatory who knowingly accepts a material risk that he is not the biological father may not avoid rescission by claiming reliance on the acknowledgment when the deception operates against the biological father and the integrity of the paternity determination.
- Adjudication of paternity and rescission of an acknowledgment are distinct from later determinations about custody or visitation standing based on a non-parent relationship with the child.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed rescission of the acknowledgment of paternity for fraud and confirmed the biological father as the child’s legal father, while leaving for future proceedings whether the non-biological former acknowledged father could seek custody or visitation under a non-parent standing theory.


R.W.E. v. A.B.K. & M.K., 961 A.2d 161 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)