Family Law Decision by Supreme Court

Question: Describe about the Family Law of Decision by Supreme Court . Answer: Facts: The appellant filed a complaint against the mother on 20th May 2996 due to the interference of the relation with Amanda, who is his child as resulting from blood test with 99.99% possibility. The appellant alleged that the interference started after the blood test result came up. The appellant here is praying for partial custody of his child concerning the interest that would go for the child. The mother filed some preliminary objections claiming Amandas fatherhood to be Stahrs marriage which intervened by the appellant by complaining that the appellant is stopped from ascertaining paternity. Legal question: The issue, in this case, is whether seeking of the paternity establish by blood test is favorable for to claim or not. Decision of trial court: The trial admitted the blood test and scheduled the matter for hearing based on what is the best interest of the child. Courts address to the particular issues: The court concluded that: Mother and the appellant, the claimed biological father engaged in sex at that time during Amandas conception. The mother may have used birth prevention method during Amandas conception. Mother and husband married and was not separated. Mother kept Amanda out of the community, forming a relation between Amanda and the appellant. Husband demonstrated attitude remaining lack of sympathy towards mother and children. The court decision of the fact: The court acknowledged the issue with the fact and admitted the grant of the blood test claiming 99.99% chance to be Amandas father. By the admission of the documents, the court discovered some legitimacy between Amanda and the appellant. Upon deciding the fact that the court admitted blood test report, the court also directed for a hearing based on what is best for the child. Law applied by Supreme Court: The laws applied by the Supreme Court are: John M. Paula T., 524 Pa. 306, 312-13, 571 a.2d 1380, 1383(Pa.), cert denied, 498 U.S. 850, 111 S.Ct 140, 112 L.Ed.2d 107(1990). Cairgle v. American radiator 7 Standard Sanitary Corp., 366 Pa. 249, 255, 77 A.2d 439, 442(1951). The above law was used to prove that the child born to a married woman becomes the child of the husband. The laws used for proving that the husband was incapable of fathering are: Freedman v. McCandless, 539 Pa. 584, 591(1995) Jones v. trojak 535 Pa 584 (1993) John M., 524 Pa. at 313-14, 571 a.2D at 1384. The Supreme Court even held that the presumption cannot get overcome when the paternity capability of the father is challenged. The appellant defended off the paternity capability as inapplicable concerning: Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 701 A.2d 176 (1997) Significance of the case: The child who is born to a married woman is also the child of the husband of that woman. It is important for the child to know the actual biological father for medical issues or any other reasons.