Davis v. Wicomico County Bureau
447 Md. 302, 135 A.3d 419, 2016 Md. LEXIS 217 (2016)
Rule of Law:
An executed affidavit of parentage, after the statutory 60-day rescission period, constitutes a legal finding of paternity and can only be challenged on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact; an unappealed prior judicial determination that these grounds were not met bars subsequent attempts to challenge paternity, including requests for genetic testing, under the doctrine of res judicata.
Facts:
- Justin Davis and Jessica Cook began a romantic relationship around December 2008.
- Mr. Davis and Ms. Cook broke up briefly and resumed their relationship in May 2009, at which point Ms. Cook informed Mr. Davis she was pregnant.
- Ms. Cook gave birth to twin boys in December 2009.
- Two days after the twins' birth, Mr. Davis and Ms. Cook executed affidavits of parentage for each child in the hospital, attesting that Mr. Davis was the natural father.
- The affidavits included statements that Mr. Davis was the natural father and Ms. Cook consented, acknowledging him as the 'only possible father.'
- Ms. Cook later testified that she had not explicitly told Mr. Davis he might not be the biological father but assumed he knew, and she confirmed the biological father was another man residing in Sweden.
- Mr. Davis became concerned about paternity when the children's physician pointed out a disparity in appearance between Mr. Davis and the children.
- Mr. Davis concluded the children were not his, and his relationship with Ms. Cook ended.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 25, 2011, the Wicomico County Bureau of Support Enforcement filed a Complaint for Child Support against Justin Davis in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County (trial court/court of first instance).
- On September 16, 2011, the Circuit Court for Wicomico County (Judge David B. Mitchell) held a trial, ordered Mr. Davis to pay child support, and denied his request for a paternity test, finding no fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact regarding the affidavits of parentage.
- Mr. Davis did not appeal the 2011 Circuit Court judgment.
- On September 10, 2013, Mr. Davis filed a 'Complaint for Blood Test, to Challenge Finding of Paternity (By Affidavit of Parentage), and to Set Aside Child Support Order' in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County.
- On December 20, 2013, the Circuit Court for Wicomico County (Judge Donald C. Davis) granted summary judgment against Mr. Davis, denying his request for a paternity test.
- Mr. Davis appealed the 2013 Circuit Court decision to the Court of Special Appeals (intermediate appellate court), where the Bureau of Support Enforcement was the appellee.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, holding Mr. Davis's claims were barred by res judicata and that he was not entitled to a blood or genetic test.
- Mr. Davis filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (highest court), which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual who executed an affidavit of parentage, and whose prior attempt to challenge paternity based on alleged fraud was unsuccessful and unappealed, have a statutory right to a genetic test years later to set aside the finding of paternity, or is such a challenge barred by res judicata and the specific statutory grounds for rescinding an affidavit of parentage?
Opinions:
Majority - Battaglia, J.
No, an individual who executed an affidavit of parentage and failed to appeal a prior judgment denying a paternity test on grounds of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, does not have a statutory right to a genetic test years later to set aside the finding of paternity, as such a challenge is barred by res judicata and the limited grounds for rescinding an affidavit of parentage under Section 5-1028. The 2011 Circuit Court order, which required Mr. Davis to pay child support and denied his request for a paternity test after finding no fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact in the execution of the affidavits, constituted a final judgment on the merits. All three requirements of res judicata (same parties, identical claims, final judgment on the merits) were met, precluding Mr. Davis from relitigating the issue in 2013. The Court clarified that while courts retain continuing jurisdiction over child support, an order establishing child support is considered a final judgment for res judicata purposes. Furthermore, the Court distinguished Family Law Article Section 5-1028 (governing affidavits of parentage) from Section 5-1038 (governing court-ordered declarations of paternity). Section 5-1028, enacted to comply with federal mandates, explicitly limits challenges to affidavits after 60 days to only fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, thereby strengthening the finality of such voluntary acknowledgments. In contrast, Section 5-1038, which has a different legislative history, allows for modification of a court-ordered declaration of paternity based on genetic testing. Conflating these two distinct statutory schemes would 'eviscerate' the plain meaning and legislative intent behind Section 5-1028. The affidavit form itself advised Mr. Davis of the legal consequences and the option for genetic testing before signing, as well as the limited grounds for later challenge. The Court affirmed that Mr. Davis, having litigated and lost his challenge based on fraud, is not entitled to a genetic test to contest paternity established by his affidavit.
Dissenting - McDonald, J.
Yes, an individual who signed an affidavit of parentage based on a genuine but mistaken belief of paternity, and whose request for a genetic test was not explicitly decided in a prior proceeding, has a statutory right to a genetic test to challenge paternity, and such a request is not barred by res judicata. The 2011 Circuit Court, despite Mr. Davis's repeated requests for a genetic test, explicitly stated that the issue before it was 'not the fatherhood of the child' but rather whether fraud, mistake, or duress justified rescinding the affidavit. Therefore, there was no final judgment on the merits of Mr. Davis's claim for a genetic test under Family Law Article Sections 5-1029 and 5-1038, and res judicata does not apply. The dissenting opinion argues that the plain language and legislative history of the statutes support that Section 5-1038 allows a declaration of paternity (including one based on an affidavit of parentage) to be set aside by a genetic test, unless the individual knew they were not the father at the time of acknowledgment. Denying a genetic test to a person who genuinely but mistakenly believed they were the father, only to find out later they were not, runs contrary to the legislative intent to ensure actual parents support their own children. Section 5-1029(b) mandates that a court 'shall order' a genetic test upon proper motion. At the summary judgment stage, viewing facts in Mr. Davis's favor, he signed the affidavits based on an honest mistake, thus entitling him to a genetic test.
Concurring - Adkins, J.
No, while genetic testing would be an equitable result and the dissent's statutory interpretation has merit, the doctrine of res judicata mandates affirming the lower court's decision. The concurring opinion agrees with the dissenting opinion's analysis of the relevant statutes and would have reversed the 2011 judgment if it had been appealed at that time. However, the 2011 Circuit Court judgment explicitly or implicitly decided that Mr. Davis was not entitled to genetic testing when it ruled against him based on his Affidavit of Parentage and the absence of fraud. Mr. Davis repeatedly told the judge he sought genetic testing, and the judge denied his request on grounds of his Affidavit. If Mr. Davis disagreed with that ruling, he should have appealed the 2011 final judgment. Since he did not, the firmly settled doctrine of res judicata bars any re-litigation of the issue of his paternity, even if it leads to an inequitable outcome.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between challenging an affidavit of parentage under FL § 5-1028 and modifying a court-ordered paternity declaration under FL § 5-1038. It underscores the Maryland Court of Appeals' strong adherence to the doctrine of res judicata, emphasizing that a litigant’s failure to appeal an adverse ruling, even one arising from a pro se appearance, can permanently bar subsequent attempts to re-litigate the same issue. The decision reinforces the finality of voluntary paternity acknowledgments made via affidavit, particularly those compliant with federal mandates, making it exceptionally difficult to disestablish paternity years later based on later-arising doubts or scientific evidence, unless fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact is proven and successfully litigated. This ruling places a high burden on individuals to understand the gravity of paternity affidavits and to pursue all available challenges and appeals in a timely manner.
