A.S. v. I.S.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
634 Pa. 629 (2015)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1998, I.S. (defendant) gave birth to twin sons in Serbia. In 2005, I.S. married A.S. (plaintiff), and the family moved to Pennsylvania. A.S. was the children’s stepfather. I.S. and A.S. raised the children together until 2009, when the parties separated. I.S. and A.S. informally shared physical custody of the children. In 2010, A.S. filed for divorce. The parties agreed on a custody arrangement, though I.S. engaged in “contemptuous” conduct with respect to it. In 2012, having recently graduated from law school, I.S. planned to relocate to California with the children. A.S. filed a complaint for custody of the children and requested an order prohibiting I.S. from leaving the jurisdiction with the children. Through legal proceedings, the court found that A.S. stood in loco parentis to the children. The court further granted A.S. shared legal and physical custody over the children and prohibited either party from relocating with them without the permission of the other. Thereafter, I.S. filed a complaint seeking child support from A.S. The court dismissed the complaint, concluding that stepparents like A.S. were not obligated to pay child support. The court reasoned that A.S. had never claimed to be or held himself out as the children’s biological father. I.S. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baer, J.)
Dissent (Saylor, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.