170 A.3d 912
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Samantha Boone and John Youngbar cohabited; Boone gave birth to daughter N. on Sept. 19, 2012. Both believed Youngbar was the biological father.
- Both parties signed an Affidavit of Parentage under Md. Code, Fam. Law § 5-1028; Youngbar is listed as legal father on the birth certificate.
- More than 60 days after signing, Boone filed a Petition to Disestablish Paternity (seeking DNA testing) alleging new information: Youngbar is not the biological father and another man is.
- Youngbar opposed the petition and moved to dismiss; he did not seek to rescind his own affidavit.
- The trial court granted Youngbar’s motion to dismiss; Boone appealed. The controlling statutory issue is the narrow post-60-day challenge standard in § 5-1028(d)(2): fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boone) | Defendant's Argument (Youngbar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boone may obtain post-60-day DNA testing to disestablish paternity after an executed affidavit of parentage | Affidavit should be set aside because new evidence shows Youngbar is not biological father; this is a "material mistake of fact" justifying relief | Statute makes affidavit a binding legal finding; post-60-day challenges are limited and only a signatory can rescind; Boone (non-signatory to Youngbar’s acknowledgment) lacks standing | Court affirmed dismissal: affidavit is a legal finding; post-60-day challenge available only on fraud, duress, or material mistake affecting a signatory who seeks rescission; Boone failed to show such a basis |
| What qualifies as a "material mistake of fact" under § 5-1028(d)(2) | Biological non-paternity is a material mistake that should allow relief | "Material mistake" is narrowly construed—must be jurisdictional (akin to Rule 2-535 standards); later-discovered biological non-paternity is not a jurisdictional mistake | Court followed precedent: biological non-paternity alone is not the kind of jurisdictional/material mistake permitting late unsettlement of an affidavit |
| Whether the court erred by dismissing without taking additional evidence | Boone argued she should be allowed to present evidence proving mistake/non-paternity | Youngbar argued statutory bar and lack of a cognizable claim defeated the petition as a matter of law | Dismissal was proper because Boone’s pleadings did not allege the required statutory grounds (fraud, duress, or material jurisdictional mistake) and she could not invoke rescission on behalf of Youngbar |
| Whether the affidavit’s legal effect is subordinate to later genetic evidence | Boone: genetics should control—affidavit shouldn’t conclusively bind when wrong | Youngbar: statute and precedent give affidavit enhanced finality over later genetic proof unless narrow statutory grounds met | Court held law gives affidavits strong finality; genetics do not automatically override a valid affidavit after the statute’s time limits are passed |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Wicomico County Bureau of Support Enforcement, 222 Md. App. 230, 112 A.3d 1024 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (held affidavit of parentage limits post-60-day challenges)
- Davis v. Wicomico County Bureau of Support Enforcement, 447 Md. 302, 135 A.3d 419 (Md. 2016) (Court of Appeals: affirmed dismissal; divided court on whether affidavit bars later genetic challenge)
- Burden v. Burden, 179 Md. App. 348, 945 A.2d 656 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008) (discussed enhanced finality of affidavit of parentage)
- Tandra S. v. Tyrone W., 336 Md. 303, 648 A.2d 439 (Md. 1994) (Rule 2-535 analysis: "mistake" must be jurisdictional to permit late relief)
- Sieglein v. Schmidt, 447 Md. 647, 136 A.3d 751 (Md. 2016) (example that legal parentage can override genetic relationships)