R.W.E. v. A.B.K and M.K.

961 A.2d 161 (2008)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

R.W.E. v. A.B.K and M.K.

Pennsylvania Superior Court
961 A.2d 161 (2008)

Facts

R.W.E. (Robert) (defendant) and A.B.K. (the mother) were involved in a tumultuous relationship. They separated for a few months, and during that separation, the mother had a sexual relationship with another man (the biological father) (plaintiff). The mother learned that she was pregnant and told Robert of her pregnancy, her relationship with the biological father, and her uncertainty regarding the paternity of the child. Robert and the mother reconciled and decided to raise the child together and to forgo genetic testing. The mother did not tell the biological father of the pregnancy. When the child was born, the mother and Robert signed the acknowledgement-of-paternity form, and the birth certificate named Robert as the child’s father. Robert and the mother lived together and raised the child together for about one year, when the relationship ended again. Robert promptly filed a complaint for custody, and the ensuing genetic testing determined that Robert was not the biological father. The biological father was then notified for the first time that he might be the child’s father, and the mother moved to join the biological father as a defendant in the matter. Further genetic testing determined that the biological father was the child's father. The biological father moved to set aside Robert’s acknowledgement of paternity, and the trial court granted the biological father’s motion, setting aside the acknowledgement of paternity. Robert appealed, arguing that the court erred when it rescinded the paternity acknowledgment because there was no evidence of fraud.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Donohue, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership