If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Because a nonbiological father had actively interfered with the potential support from the biological father, and the child had relied upon his representations to her detriment, he was estopped from denying paternity.

The court found that the defendant had always acted as if he were the father of the child, and supplied her with emotional and financial support throughout her life. In addition, he made several representations to the mother and daughter that he would always emotionally and financially support the child as his own. The court found that the child and mother had relied on those assurances to their present and future detriment, which also interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to pursue the biological father for child support. The whereabouts of the biological father remain unknown. In respect to these actions, the court initiated equitable estoppel against the defendant’s argument that the mother and daughter’s financial needs no longer required his support. The context of parental responsibilities is not confined to biologic status. In child support, the mere knowledge of the biological parents presence does not automatically release the nonbiolgical parent from his represented responsibilities, and obligations that he promised the child.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: W. v. W., 779 A.2d 716 ; 2001 Conn. LEXIS 277 (Conn. 2001)