In the Interest of A.M. a minor, a Decision issued by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on June 9, 2018, extended, in a case of first impression, the standing of parentage in a same sex marriage. In A.M. the parents were legally married in Allegheny County in February 2015. This is a marriage of two individuals of the same sex who are women. It should be noted however that the Court often refers to one of the individuals as “father” and uses the pronoun “him,” at the request of one of the parties.
After the child was born, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families obtained an emergency protective custody order for the child along with her half siblings and placed the children with the maternal grandmother. The same sex parents had a difficult marriage riddled with conflict and at times, violence. At the initial adjudicatory hearing, the status of one of the parents as a parent was raised. It was notable that both parents are listed on the child’s birth certificate and should be regarded as the child’s legal parent. The initial Court found that the same-sex individual who was the non-biological parent should not be regarded as a parent. The mother of the child indicated that her partner had been missing for over a week and that she intended to separate from her partner because the relationship was hindering her progress towards regaining custody of her children. The Court ended up ordering the child remain in place with her grandmother and then scheduled a permanency review hearing.
At the final hearing on April 9, 2018 the parties argued on whether the presumption of paternity applied to a non-biological same sex spouse who was married to the biological mother at the time of the birth. The initial trial Court issued an order denying the same-sex spouses request for standing in June 2018. The matter was then appealed to the Superior Court. The court noted that the presumption of paternity was one of the strongest presumptions known to the law. The law indicates that if a woman gives birth during her marriage, her spouse is considered the other parent of the child. This presumption of paternity preserves marriages and applies where the policy is advanced by one of the parties.
The Court found that both same-sex parties were married and the child was conceived during this marriage. The trial court found that the presumption was not applicable because the same-sex marriage was no longer intact. The Superior Court however found that although the marriage was riddled with challenges and difficulties, the simple existence of troubles in a marriage did not eliminate the presumption of paternity. Moreover, since there were no divorce proceedings, thus the Court found that the parties intended to remain married and were sporadically attending various treatment programs to improve their relationship. The Court indicated that the non-biological parent did have standing. The Court stated they had no difficulty in holding that the presumption of paternity is equally as applicable to same-sex marriages as it is the opposite sex marriages. The court referred to other states that have made similar decisions.
This case is extremely important as it gives a nonbiological married partner standing with regard to custody in Pennsylvania courts.