Presumption of Paternity Applies Even in Same-Sex Marriage

Presumption of paternity the same for same-sex marriage.

Pennsylvania case summary on paternity in a same-sex marriage.

In Interest of A.M.

This Pennsylvania case involved a child born to one of the spouses in a same-sex marriage.  The spouses were both biological females, and during the marriage, one of them gave birth to a child.  The other spouse was listed on the birth certificate as the father.

In Pennsylvania, as in most other states, there is a presumption that a child conceived or born during a marriage is a child of the marriage.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has described this as “one of the strongest presumptions known to the law.”

The two spouses were legally married at the time the child was born.  Shortly before the birth, however, two of the mother’s children from a previous relationship were adjudicated dependent and placed with a grandparent.  When the baby was born, the Office of Children, Youth, and Families obtained an order placing the new baby with the other children.  A guardian ad litem was appointed, and the case went to court.

The guardian ad litem took the position that the marriage was no longer “intact,” and that for that reason, the other spouse did not have standing to participate in the proceedings.  This was based on the fact that the two spouses were separated, and there were allegations of physical abuse.  The trial court accepted this argument, and the other spouse was not allowed to participate in the proceeding.  An appeal to the Superior Court followed.

The appeals court first addressed the standing issue, which hinged on whether the marriage was “intact” at the time of the birth.  The Superior Court quickly dealt with this issue by noting that the spouses were still legally married.  Even though there was trouble in the marriage—even one as serious as domestic abuse—the presumption of paternity was still applicable.  Therefore, the spouse should have been granted standing in the case.

The appeals court next addressed whether the presumption of paternity applied in the case of a same-sex marriage.  It noted that the purpose for the presumption was to preserve marriages.  It noted that same-sex marriages were legal, and were afforded the same rights and protections as opposite-sex marriages. 

For that reason, the court held that the presumption of paternity applied in cases of same-sex marriage.  It cited cases from Hawaii, Arizona, and New York that reached the same conclusion.

For this reason, the court held that the lower court should have granted standing to the other spouse.  It reversed the order of the lower court.

No. M987 WDA 2018, 2019 PA Super 344 (Nov. 19,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.