174 A.3d 468
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- B.C. was born June 2014, exposed to cocaine in utero, and was sheltered by the Department of Social Services (DSS); mother and appellant G.C. were found unable to provide appropriate care and B.C. was adjudicated CINA.
- G.C. was listed as father on the birth certificate because he was married to the mother at the time, but both he and the mother believed he was not the biological father.
- After placement with G.C.’s niece, G.C. acted threateningly and was barred contact; he then requested genetic testing hoping to disrupt the placement.
- A DNA test (Feb 2016) showed G.C. was not B.C.’s biological father; DSS moved to determine exclusion of paternity and later to strike G.C. from the CINA and TPR proceedings.
- The juvenile court granted exclusion of paternity (Sept. 2016) and later struck G.C. as a party in the guardianship/TPR proceedings (Dec. 2016); G.C. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | DSS/Child's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion by disestablishing paternity of a presumptive father (married to mother at birth) at DSS request | G.C.: marriage, birth-certificate listing, and his holding-out justify retaining parental status despite DNA showing non‑paternity | DSS/Child: DNA proves non‑biological status; G.C. never formed a parental bond and removal was in child’s best interest | Court: No abuse — DNA rebutted presumption and, considering CINA factors and best interest, disestablishment was appropriate |
| Whether juvenile court erred in excluding G.C. from TPR/guardianship proceedings based on paternity exclusion | G.C.: exclusion from TPR proceedings was improper if disestablishment was improper; exclusion eliminates his ability to participate | DSS/Child: exclusion follows from valid disestablishment and is consistent with child’s permanency interests | Court: No error — exclusion was proper because paternity had been validly disestablished |
Key Cases Cited
- Sieglein v. Schmidt, 224 Md. App. 223 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (presumption of parentage may be rebutted only after showing disestablishment is in child's best interest)
- In re Thomas H., 381 Md. 174 (Md. 2004) (CINA courts’ paternity determinations discussed in context of identifying proper parties)
- Turner v. Whisted, 327 Md. 106 (Md. 1992) (court should consider child’s best interest before ordering genetic testing)
- Kamp v. Department of Human Resources, 410 Md. 645 (Md. 2009) (balancing father’s interest in genetic truth against child’s familial stability)
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (Md. 2003) (standards of review and required consideration for TPR decisions)
- Conover v. Conover, 450 Md. 51 (Md. 2016) (de facto parent factors)