Opinion ID: 2197309
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Paternity Action

Text: Before us, Debbie and Gus assert that a circuit court has no authority to deny a paternity petition when: (1) the mother and biological father of an infant under the age of two jointly request a determination of paternity, (2) the paternity is supported by a blood test and the husband consents to the biological paternity, and (3) there is no marital integrity to protect because of the pending divorce action between the mother and husband. They also maintain that the best interest of the child standard, suggested by the Court of Special Appeals as the proper standard on remand, is inappropriate because fundamental interests, parental privacy and paternity, are involved. Moreover, they argue, even if the best interest of the child standard is utilized, the uncontroverted facts in this case preclude a court from ruling that Bruce is the natural father. Debbie and Gus next contend that a biological father should not be estopped from establishing his paternity when he filed a petition to do so only six days after learning that he may be the father. They maintain that the denial of the paternity petition violated Gus's rights under both the federal and state constitutions. Specifically, they assert that the disparate treatment of men in general, and of Gus in the instant case, in the context of paternity litigation violates Maryland's Equal Rights Amendment, Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. [8] Furthermore, it is argued that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Gus has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of his child. Finally, they aver that the right to conceive and to raise one's child is an essential right, which has been ignored in this case.