## Facts

- Melissa L. Weidman and Robert J. Weidman married in 1992 and had two biological children.
- Robert underwent a vasectomy in 1995.
- Xavier was born during the marriage in 1998; it was undisputed Robert was not Xavier’s biological father, and Robert knew this when Melissa was pregnant.
- Robert nevertheless allowed his name to be listed as father on Xavier’s birth records and did not correct Xavier’s use of “daddy.”
- While the family lived together, Robert financially supported and cared for Xavier as part of the household and claimed him as a dependent on tax returns.
- The parties separated in 2000 and later divorced in 2001; Robert did not maintain contact with Xavier after separation.
- After divorce, Melissa sought a support order for Xavier; the trial court found Robert acted only in loco parentis during the intact marriage and terminated any support obligation, concluding paternity by estoppel did not apply.

## Issues

1. Whether paternity by estoppel barred Robert from denying paternity for child-support purposes where he knowingly held himself out as Xavier’s father during the marriage.
2. Whether the trial court erred by treating Robert’s relationship as merely in loco parentis and therefore terminable upon separation and divorce.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed the order relieving Robert of support.
- The court held Robert was estopped from denying paternity for child-support purposes.
- The court rejected the view that Robert’s obligations ended at separation merely because his prior role could be described as in loco parentis.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with imposing an ongoing support obligation.

## Legal Principles

- Paternity by estoppel applies when an adult, through conduct, holds himself out as a child’s parent such that the child’s interests in continuity and support would be harmed by a later denial of parentage.
- The controlling consideration in applying paternity by estoppel is the child’s welfare, not the equities between the adults.
- A husband who knowingly permits his name to appear as father on birth records and functions as the child’s father within the family may incur a continuing duty of support even without a biological relationship.

## Conclusion

The court held that a husband who knowingly accepted and represented a parental role for a child born during the marriage could not later disclaim paternity to avoid support after separation and divorce, and it reinstated the potential for a support order on remand.


Weidman v. Weidman, 808 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)