In a twist on paternity cases, absentee father is denied genetic test.

A man who is probably the biological father of a child born in 1996 is not entitled to a genetic test to determine paternity because he waited too long to come forward and the child's mother established a family unit with another man, a Pennsylvania superior court has ruled. (Buccieri v. Campagna, No. 835 EDA 2005, 2005 WL 3304607 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 7, 2005).)

The court held that the presumed father could not demand a paternity test after an eight-year absence from the child's life. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has used an estoppel theory to prevent an uninvolved father from establishing paternity (In re Adoption of S.A.J., 838 A.2d 616 (Pa. 2003)), "this is the first time someone has used the estoppel theory to deny someone a paternity test," said Michael Fioretti, a Philadelphia matrimonial lawyer who represented the child's mother in the proceedings.

According to the opinion, the child's mother and putative father were never married, and the child, G.B., was conceived during a brief sexual relationship. When the mother told the man that she was pregnant, he said he did not believe her and left the relationship one week later.

No one was listed as the father on the birth certificate, and the mother did not file a paternity action or petition for support but said she had "no doubt" the man was the child's father. He did not acknowledge paternity or pay support. The two had no contact for several years until they ran into each other at a park, and the man saw G.B. for the first time.

After the chance meeting, the father was absent for a few more years, then filed a complaint for partial custody and a petition for genetic testing. In the meantime, G.B. had established a three-year relationship with the mother's fiance (now husband) and called him "Dad."

The lower court granted the father's petition for paternity testing, but the three-judge appeals panel reversed. The putative father's "own delay and inactivity for eight years now bars him from confirming or asserting his paternity through genetic tests," Judge Susan Peikes Gantman wrote. "When balanced against societal concerns for constancy in the child's life, we see no reason to allow [the putative father] to march into [the child's] life at this late date."

In the family law context, the principle of equitable estoppel is generally applied to bar a former partner from denying parental status when he or she assumed a parental relationship with a child for a period of time. In event of a divorce or separation, the noncustodial partner may be required to pay child support even if he or she is not the biological parent. This case turned that scenario on its head: The doctrine of estoppel was applied to bar a putative father from claiming paternity, said Fioretti.

He said the ruling was a good decision as a matter of law and a just result for the family.