Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
923 A.2d 473 (2007)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Jodilynn Jacob (plaintiff) and Jennifer Shultz-Jacob (defendant) lived together as a couple for approximately nine years in York County, Pennsylvania. During that time, Shultz-Jacob adopted her nephews A.J. and L.J., and gave birth to two other children, Co.J. and Ca.J., through artificial insemination. The sperm donor, Carl Frampton (defendant), was a friend of the couple and continued to be a part of his children’s lives after their birth. He urged them to call him “Papa” and contributed financially to their upbringing. Jacob and Shultz-Jacob eventually separated. Shultz-Jacob moved with all four children to Dauphin County. Jacob sued both Shultz-Jacob and Frampton in a York County court for sole legal and physical custody of the children. Shultz-Jacob then sued Jacob in a Dauphin County court, seeking child support for Co.J. and Ca.J. Jacob sought to join Frampton in the support suit as a contributor, but the court denied her motion. The court ordered that Jacob pay approximately $983 in monthly support. After a trial, the court ordered that Jacob, Shultz-Jacob, and Frampton share custody. Jacob was given primary physical custody of L.J.; Shultz-Jacob was given primary physical custody of A.J., Co.J., and Ca.J; Frampton was given custody of Co.J. and Ca.J. one weekend a month. Jacob appealed both the support and the custody orders.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.