Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Eberharter, 361 Pa.Super. 65, 521 A.2d 474 (1987), we defined the doctrine of equitable estoppel: Equitable estoppel arises when a party by acts or representation intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe that certain facts exist and the other justifiably relies and acts upon such belief, so that the latter will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts. Id. at 479-80 (citation omitted). The concept of paternity by estoppel has been upheld in numerous circumstances where a child or mother seeks child support from a purported father who has held himself out to the child and community as the father, but then attempts to deny paternity when support is sought. See Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 249, 701 A.2d 176, 180 (1997) (<HOLDING>) and citations therein. ¶ 17 In Brinkley, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child (B) holding any person who has supplied necessities to a child may sue and recover from the childs parent for value of the supplies or services furnished to the child (C) holding that the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that regardless of biology and the presumption of paternity the person who has cared for the child is the childs parent (D) recognizing that the child custody act required that the natural parent presumption must be seriously considered and heavily weighted in favor of the parent but that the presumption is rebutted if the clear and convincing evidence establishes that the best interest of the child is served by awarding custody to the third party (E) holding when real estate is conveyed to a child and consideration is paid by the parent the presumption is that the purchase was a gift to the child and thus no resulting trust arises
Output (English): holding any person who has supplied necessities to a child may sue and recover from the childs parent for value of the supplies or services furnished to the child