Appeal from the Order Entered August 26, 1987, in the Court Pleas of Allegheny County, Family, No. FD 85-08967
Lorraine M. Bittner, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Cirillo, President Judge, and Beck and Popovich, JJ.
[ 376 Pa. Super. Page 167]
This is an appeal from an order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
On October 3, 1985, appellant Torriona Mitchell initiated this action by filing a complaint for support of her infant son, Anthony Charles Hopson, Jr. (Anthony), who was born on September 20, 1985. When Anthony was born, Ms. Mitchell applied for and was determined to be eligible to receive monetary public assistance for Anthony from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (A.F.D.C.). As a condition to receiving this public assistance, Ms. Mitchell was required to file this support action against the man she alleges to be her son's father, namely Anthony Charles Hopson.
Pursuant to Ms. Mitchell's complaint, an informal conference was held at which Mr. Hopson denied paternity of Anthony. Immediately following the conference, the court issued an order, pursuant to section 6133 of the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity,*fn1 requiring the parties to present themselves promptly at 9:15 a.m. on July 17, 1986, at the University Health Center of Pittsburgh for blood tests. The parties complied with the order and the Human Leucocyte Antigen (H.L.A.) blood test was performed.
[ 376 Pa. Super. Page 168]
The test results, which excluded Mr. Hopson as the father of Anthony, were then sent to the family court division of the court of common pleas and entered onto the court docket. Shortly thereafter, the trial court entered the following order:
AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 1986, it appearing to the Court that Plaintiff has filed a complaint against Defendant for support for a child born out of wedlock and that the blood test results, a copy of which are attached hereto, have excluded the Defendant as the father of the child Anthony Hopson, Jr., born September 20, 1985, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1.) A rule is issued on Plaintiff to show cause why the support complaint should not be dismissed.
2.) In the event that Plaintiff has any reason why this case should not be dismissed she must file a ...