Faison v. McOcse Ex Rel. Murray
174 A.3d 939
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Mother and Reginald Faison signed an Affidavit of Parentage the day after the child’s birth; the Affidavit states it "constitutes a legal finding of paternity."
- Faison later came to doubt biological paternity (based on timing of intercourse and two at‑home DNA tests) and denied paternity in a child‑support proceeding filed by MCOCSE.
- Faison moved for court‑authorized genetic testing to determine whether he was the biological father and to support a claim that he signed the affidavit under a material mistake of fact.
- The circuit court found Faison had acknowledged paternity, saw no fraud/duress/mistake sufficient to rescind the affidavit, denied the genetic testing motion, and ordered child support.
- Faison appealed, arguing entitlement to genetic testing under the Family Law scheme and that the trial court failed to address whether he met the burden to show a material mistake of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Faison's Argument | MCOCSE's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an individual who has executed an affidavit of parentage is entitled to court‑ordered genetic testing to pursue rescission or setting aside paternity | Faison: statute and Davis (controlling analysis in dissent/concurring opinion) permit genetic testing to determine whether he signed under a material mistake of fact | MCOCSE: the affidavit creates a presumption of parentage and testing is unavailable absent proof of fraud, duress, or material mistake first | Court: Reversed — Faison is entitled to genetic testing to attempt to prove he signed under a material mistake of fact or to seek to set aside the declaration of paternity. |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider whether Faison met his burden to prove a material mistake of fact | Faison: the court should consider whether testing will show he signed under a material mistake of fact | MCOCSE: trial court found no fraud/duress/mistake and relied on the affidavit; testing not permitted without meeting statutory standard | Court: Remanded — trial court must allow testing and then address whether Faison can meet the statutory standard (fraud, duress, or material mistake) or seek relief under §5‑1038 if testing excludes him. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Wicomico County Bureau, 447 Md. 302 (Md. 2016) (Court of Appeals decision; plurality affirmed on res judicata grounds but a concurrence and dissent read the Family Law scheme to permit post‑affidavit genetic testing)
- Langston v. Riffe, 359 Md. 396 (Md. 2000) (authorizes post‑order genetic testing to challenge paternity)
- Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386 (Md. 2002) (standard of review for legal questions; de novo review)