In Re KATERINE L. and Alex F.
103 A.3d 1144
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Mother and Mr. B. were married in 2000; Mother had five children during the marriage. Four younger children became subject to Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) proceedings after removal in June 2013. Mr. B. had little or no contact with the children for years but remained the presumptive legal father of children born during the marriage under ET § 1-206.
- At the July 2013 adjudication, the court acknowledged disputed biological parentage and said genetic testing would require a best-interests hearing; two other putative fathers for two children agreed to testing.
- At an October 4, 2013 best-interests hearing, the court ordered genetic testing for two children (Adriana and Eric) where putative fathers were available, but denied testing for Katerine and Alex, finding testing not in those children’s best interests (in part because no other putative father was available for Katerine and evidence did not rebut the presumption as to Alex).
- At a February 21, 2014 review hearing the court received new evidence (DNA results confirming paternity for Adriana and Eric; Alex’s birth certificate naming another man). The court declined to change its earlier denial as to Katerine and Alex but acknowledged it could revisit parentage at future CINA review hearings.
- Mr. B. filed a petition to vacate paternity and request DNA testing; the court briefly granted testing in March 2014, then rescinded that order in April 2014. Mr. B. appealed; the Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of an appealable final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by treating availability of another putative father as prerequisite to ordering genetic testing | Mr. B.: testing is in children’s best interests (medical/genetic history, truth) and court shouldn’t require another putative father be available | Department/Court: best-interests inquiry may consider availability of putative father; here court reasonably considered multiple factors | Not reached on merits — appeal dismissed as order denying testing was interlocutory and not final |
| Whether Mr. B. was improperly denied right to counsel at October 4 hearing | Mr. B.: denial/insufficient protection of right to counsel | Department/Court: Mr. B. attended and declined counsel; waiver rules differ in CINA cases but was offered counsel | Not reached — procedural posture: interlocutory order not appealable |
| Whether court erred by sua sponte rescinding earlier DNA order (March order rescinded April) | Mr. B.: rescission improperly withdrew a final order granting testing | Department/Court: court has revisory power under Rule 11-116 to modify/vacate orders in best interest of child | Not reached — appeal untimely as to prior orders and remaining denial is interlocutory |
| Whether interlocutory denial of genetic testing is appealable (collateral-order or CJP § 12-303 exception) | Mr. B.: order affects fundamental parental rights and should be immediately reviewable | Department: denial is interlocutory discovery-type/CINA matter, may be revisited at review hearings; does not deprive custody or change antecedent custody order | Court held: denial is interlocutory, not within statutory exceptions and does not meet the collateral-order doctrine; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Wilson, 382 Md. 614 (recognizing Estates & Trusts presumption and best-interests approach to ordering genetic tests)
- Turner v. Whisted, 327 Md. 106 (factors for best-interests analysis when paternity is contested)
- In re Samone H., 385 Md. 282 (order appealability depends on whether order concludes rights or leaves further action pending)
- In re Karl H., 394 Md. 402 (interlocutory orders that deprive parent of care/custody may be immediately appealable)
- Pittsburgh Corning v. James, 353 Md. 657 (elements of collateral-order doctrine)
- In re Foley, 373 Md. 627 (discovery/physical-exam orders are interlocutory and generally not appealable)
- Ashley v. Mattingly, 176 Md. App. 38 (favoring Estates & Trusts presumption as less traumatic means to establish paternity)