Sitler v. Jones, 2025 Pa. LEXIS 600 (Pa. Super. Ct., April 25, 2025) (Wecht, J.)
JUSTICE WECHT
The presumption of paternity dictates that, regardless of biology, the child of a married woman is the child of her husband. At issue in this case is whether this longstanding principle of the common law retains force in Pennsylvania and, if so, how it is applied in our courts.
Unless and until the legislature acts, we entrust the contours of the best interests inquiry for purposes of determining legal parentage to the lower courts to develop on a case-by-case basis. For present purposes, we note that the factors included in Section 613 of the Uniform Parentage Act appear well-aligned with the standard we announce today, insofar as they account for both the best interests of the child and the interests of potential parents. Those factors include:
(1) the age of the child;
(2) the length of time during which each individual assumed the role of parent of the child;
(3) the nature of the relationship between the child and each individual;
(4) the harm to the child if the relationship between the child and each individual is not recognized;
(5) the basis for each individual’s claim to parentage of the child;
(6) other equitable factors arising from the disruption of the relationship between the child and each individual or the likelihood of other harm to the child; . . .
(7) the facts surrounding the discovery [that] the individual [might or] might not be a genetic parent of the child;
and (8) the length of time between the time that the individual was placed on notice that the individual [might or] might not be a genetic parent and the commencement of the proceeding.
The mother’s spouse will be the child’s parent. However, the presumption may be rebutted if the putative father produces clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) there is a reasonable possibility that DNA testing would reveal him to be the child’s biological father; and
(2) determining parentage based upon DNA testing serves the best interests of the child, with due consideration for the interests of the potential father as well as the interests of the wife and husband. If the court finds no threshold possibility of paternity or determines that adjudicating paternity by DNA testing would disserve the relevant interests, then the presumption governs. But if the court finds a threshold possibility of paternity and determines that the balance of interests lies in assigning paternity based upon the biological truth, the presumption must yield, and the court should order appropriate genetic testing to determine paternity of the child.
In applying and affirming an irrebuttable presumption of paternity here, the lower courts did not have the benefit of our reconsideration of the presumption. Therefore, we vacate and remand to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Chief Justice Todd and Justices Dougherty, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion. Justice Donohue files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Justice Mundy joins.
