Weidman v. Weidman
Pennsylvania Superior Court
808 A.2d 576 (2002)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Melissa Weidman (plaintiff) and Robert Weidman (defendant) were married and had two children, Jordan and Miranda. Robert had a vasectomy after Jordan and Miranda were born. Melissa later became pregnant and gave birth to Xavier on September 28, 1998. Robert knew that he was not Xavier’s father, and Melissa never said otherwise. Nevertheless, Robert agreed to name himself as Xavier’s father for Xavier’s birth record and birth certificate because Robert did not want Jordan or Miranda to ask questions about Xavier’s parentage. Robert did not tell anyone that Xavier was his child, but Robert allowed Xavier to call Robert “daddy.” Melissa spent her days sleeping and her nights out on the town instead of taking care of Xavier. Robert bought food, clothes, and diapers for Xavier and took care of Xavier along with Jordan and Miranda. Robert had all three children’s names tattooed on his chest and claimed Xavier as a dependent on the family tax returns. Melissa and Robert separated in January 2000. Robert and Xavier did not visit with each other after the separation. The trial court entered a decree of divorce on September 28, 2001. Melissa later petitioned the court for an order for Robert to support Xavier. The trial court found that the doctrine of estoppel did not prevent Robert from denying his paternity of Xavier and therefore issued an order relieving Robert from the obligation to provide parental support to Xavier. Melissa appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cavanaugh, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 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.