In re: Adoption/G'ship of B.C.
234 Md. App. 698, 174 A.3d 468 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal presumption that a man is the father of a child born during his marriage may be rebutted and his paternity disestablished if he voluntarily obtains genetic testing proving non-paternity, and a court determines that disestablishment is in the best interest of the child, particularly when the child is in state custody and requires permanency.
Facts:
- In June 2014, C.R. gave birth to a child, B.C., while married to G.C.
- G.C. was named as the father on B.C.'s birth certificate, making him the presumptive father, although both he and C.R. knew he was not the biological father.
- B.C. was born exposed to cocaine and was immediately placed in the care of the Department of Social Services (the Department), never having lived with G.C. or C.R.
- G.C. arranged for B.C. to be placed with his niece, but after G.C. became threatening towards her, the niece cut off all contact.
- Seeking to disrupt the child's placement with the niece, G.C. requested a paternity test.
- A paternity test conducted on February 19, 2016, confirmed that G.C. was not B.C.'s biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- Shortly after B.C.'s birth, the Department of Social Services placed the child in foster care via a Shelter Care Order.
- On August 14, 2014, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, sitting as a juvenile court, found B.C. to be a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA).
- Following G.C.'s voluntary paternity test, the Department filed a Motion to Determine Exclusion of Paternity in the juvenile court.
- On September 16, 2016, the juvenile court granted the Department's motion and issued an order disestablishing G.C.'s paternity.
- The Department then filed a motion to strike G.C. as a party in the CINA and Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) proceedings, which the juvenile court granted on December 6, 2016.
- G.C. (Appellant) appealed both orders to the intermediate appellate court.
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 a juvenile court abuse its discretion by disestablishing the paternity of a presumptive father, at the request of the Department of Social Services, when the man himself requested and obtained a genetic test proving non-paternity and the court finds it is in the child's best interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Reed, J.
No. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by disestablishing G.C.'s paternity because the decision was in the best interest of the child. The presumption of paternity for a child born in a marriage can be rebutted. Here, G.C. himself initiated the process by requesting and undergoing genetic testing to prove he was not the biological father. The court reasoned that in cases involving a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA), the child's need for permanency is a critical factor. The court applied the 'best interest of the child' test, considering factors such as the stability of the child's home, the lack of an established parental relationship between G.C. and B.C., and G.C.'s inability to provide adequate care. Because B.C. had never lived with G.C. and had no bonded relationship with him, and since G.C.'s actions initiated the challenge to his own paternity, the court found that disestablishing paternity was a necessary step to allow the child to be adopted and achieve a permanent, stable home life.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a presumptive father's rights are not absolute and can be terminated based on his own actions when it serves the child's welfare. It establishes that while the Department of Social Services generally cannot initiate a challenge to the paternity of a man married to the mother, it can act upon the results of a genetic test voluntarily sought by the presumptive father himself. The case reinforces the paramount importance of the 'best interest of the child' standard in CINA proceedings, emphasizing that a child's need for permanency can override a presumptive father's legal status, especially when that father has no established parental relationship with the child.
