In the Matter of Shondel J., Respondent v. Mark D., Appellant

Summary

The Court affirmed that a man who represented himself as a child's father may be equitably estopped from denying paternity and ordered to pay child support because the child justifiably relied on his representation, and the best interests of the child require such enforcement. The dissent argued that estoppel should apply only where false conduct exists and the facts do not support imposing support on a non‑biological father.