Court Opinion

ID: 9701998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:48:11.964541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:18.104722
License: Public Domain

BELL, Chief Judge,
Dissenting.
This Court today holds:
“... 1995 Maryland Laws, Chapter 248 was intended by the Legislature to be applied to all paternity cases, whenever initiated.[1] Thus, anyone who has a paternity declaration entered against him prior to October 1, 1995, without blood and genetic testing, generally may initiate proceedings to modify or set aside that declaration under section 5-1038(a)(2)(i)2 of the Family Law Article. In those proceedings, the putative father may, by motion, request a blood or genetic test, pursuant to section 5-1029, in order to confirm or deny paternity, which is admissible in evidence under the provisions of that statute. A determination of the best *439interests of the child in ordering the requested testing, or in the consideration of paternity, whether original or revised, is inappropriate. Our holding today applies only to proceedings to modify or set aside a paternity declaration; an attempt to modify or set aside any other order resulting from an original paternity declaration is governed by section 5-1038(b).”
359 Md. 396, 437, 754 A.2d 389, 411. Thus, from the amendment of a statute in response to one of our decisions, which the history of the amendment indicates that the Legislature thought gave too restrictive an interpretation to the finality rule of Maryland Rule 2-535, the majority expands the right of one under a paternity order not simply to seek modification of that order, what the Legislature clearly sought to achieve, but to obtain, as a matter of right and without regard to the interests of anyone, certainly not the child who is also the subject of the order, a blood or genetic test, pursuant to a statute that has not been amended and which only addresses pre-paternity order proceedings. Because I simply cannot believe that the Legislature intended what the majority orders and because the logic of the majority’s resolution of the issue this case presents escapes me, I dissent.
Tandra S. v. Tyrone W., 336 Md. 303, 306, 648 A.2d 439, 440 (1994) addressed “the question whether a court can vacate an enrolled paternity judgment based on the results of a post-judgment blood test or based on the mother’s post-judgment testimony that the judicially determined father is not in fact the father.” The resolution of that question required the construction of Md.Code (1984, 1991 Repl.Vol.) § 5-1038 of the Family Law Article, which, at the time provided:
“(a) Declaration of paternity final.—Except in the manner and to the extent that any order or decree of an equity court is subject to the revisory power of the court under any law, rale, or established principle of practice and procedure in equity, a declaration of paternity in an order is final.
“(b) Other orders subject to modification.—Except for a declaration of paternity, the court may modify or set aside *440any order or part of an order under this subtitle as the court considers just and proper in light of the circumstances and in the best interests of the child.”
We concluded that a court could not vacate an enrolled judgment under the circumstances therein enumerated, reasoning,
“Reading §§ 5-1038(a) and (b) together, it is clear that the more liberal revisory rule, § 5—1038(b), governs orders relating to paternity, but does not control the declaration of paternity itself. Rather, § 5-1038 read in its entirety makes it plain that paternity judgments are governed by the strict revisory rules set forth in Rule 2-535.” [2]
336 Md. at 315, 648 A.2d at 445. Under Rule 2-535(b), after thirty days, a judgment becomes enrolled and may be revised only upon a showing of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. See Maryland Code (1974, 1989 RepLVol.) § 6-408 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article3 (“[ajfter the expiration of [thirty days,] the court has revisory power and control over the judgment only in case of fraud, mistake, irregularity, or failure of an employee of the court or of the clerk’s office to perform a duty required by statute or rule”). After reviewing the precedents on the meaning of fraud, mistake and irregularity, we determined that neither had been shown.
*441Thus, despite the reliability of the evidence to prove the petitioners’ non-paternity, in one case, a blood test excluded the petitioner, Tyrone W. and, in the other, the mother, by changing the child’s name shortly after the paternity to that of a man, whom she identified as the child’s father, admitted that the petitioner, John S., Jr., was not the father of her child, the unfairness in each case of the result to the petitioner, and without regard to whether the adjudicated fathers acted in good faith or with ordinary diligence, 336 Md. at 323, 648 A.2d at 448, we held that the rule of finality was sacrosanct, that the result in both cases must stand, there being no exception permitting the Court to change it. As to the blood tests, noting the agreement of courts in other States, we stated:
“The blood tests, which the circuit court relied on in vacating the judgment, do not alter this result. Rule 2-535(b) provides a circuit court with very limited revisory powers. The results of the blood test did not change the unambiguous mandate that exists in the revisory rule. Therefore, the circuit court erred when it vacated the 1990 paternity judgment and left the child fatherless because, as the circuit court itself recognized, neither fraud, mistake, nor irregularity had occurred. The majority of decisions from other jurisdictions similarly reject attempts to reopen paternity judgments based on post-judgment blood tests.”
Id. at 320, 648 A.2d at 447. Similarly, with regard to the name change proceedings, the Court pointed out:
“But this did not have the effect of nullifying the 1986 paternity judgment, which declared John to be the father; furthermore, it did not vest paternity in Randy. In regard to paternity and as to the parental relationship between John and the child, the name change was meaningless. See Carroll County v. Edelmann, 320 Md. 150, 175-76, 577 A.2d 14 (1990) (a court has no authority to terminate a parental relationship other than through a decree of adoption or guardianship). Even if it was the mother’s intent to terminate John’s child support payments by changing her child’s name, the result would be no different. In Stambaugh v. Child Support Admin., 323 Md. 106, 591 A.2d 501 (1991), we *442made clear that one parent may not waive his or her child’s right to support from the other parent. Id. at 111-12, 591 A.2d 501. See also Stancill v. Stancill, 286 Md. 530, 535, 408 A.2d 1030 (1979) (a court may not be handcuffed in the exercise of its duty to act in the best interests of a child by any agreement between the parents). Therefore, the mother could not unilaterally release John from his support obligations by merely changing her child’s name. If the courts below concluded that the name change provided a basis for vacating the 1986 paternity judgment, we disagree.
“Moreover, if we were to uphold the lower court’s decision in this case, the ramifications could be potentially disastrous. For example, what if the mother in another five years changes her statement again and testifies that John is the father? Should a court at that juncture reinstate the original paternity judgment? In this regard, the policy of finality serves an important purpose—the parties understand their respective rights and need have no concern about future developments changing their rights.”
Id. at 322-23, 648 A.2d at 448.
We concluded:
“It is therefore clear that the overriding policy in Maryland emphasizes that once a case is decided, it shall remain decided with certain very narrow exceptions. Moreover, the majority of decisions from other jurisdictions support giving conclusive effect to a judicial finding of paternity and, therefore, are in accord with our decision today....
“The result in these cases may seem harsh. Indeed, in case no. 144, Tyrone has been excluded as a possible father. Nevertheless, in each case, the ‘judicially determined father’ was advised of all the safeguards the law provides to prevent incorrect decisions, and waived all those rights. It is evident that each man had an adequate opportunity to obtain a fair and full adjudication of paternity in the original action, but each failed to avail himself of that opportunity. To argue that fairness requires relitigation of the paternity question totally overlooks the fact that the adjudicated *443fathers in each of these cases did have a chance to contest the paternity issue but did not, choosing instead to accept the paternity determination knowing that they would be required to support their respective children. It also overlooks the unfairness that would occur to the children if the paternity issue were allowed to be relitigated, thereby leaving the children fatherless and without support.
“Moreover, we have consistently said that a court’s reviso-ry powers do not provide for the amendment of an enrolled judgment on the ground of ‘fundamental unfairness.’ ”
Id. at 324-25, 648 A.2d at 449.
The dissenters noted a difference between paternity and other judgments and, therefore, urged the application of Maryland Code (1984, 1991 Repl.Vol.), § 5-1007 of the Family Law Article, which, as relevant, provided that “[a]ny rule of court or statute that relates to procedure applies to a proceeding under this subtitle only to the extent that the rule or statute is ... (1) practical under the circumstances ...,” be applied to the review of paternity judgments. 336 Md. at 326, 648 A.2d at 450 (Eldridge, J. dissenting). But it was the rigidity of the analysis and the construction given § 5-1038, and the unfairness it generated, to which they reacted most forcefully and for which they excoriated the majority:
“In light of the basic differences between paternity judgments and the judgments in other types of lawsuits, the majority’s holding today, in the words of the Court of Special Appeals, ‘defies common sense.’ Undoubtedly society has a strong interest in ending disputes at some point in time, and normally other interests must yield to the limitations on a court’s revisory powers. Nevertheless, a completely rigid adherence to the shibboleth that ‘in today’s highly litigious society, there must be some point in time when a judgment becomes final,’ in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence that a particular individual did not father a given child, with all of the attendant ramifications of such decree, is absurd. Under the majority’s view, presumably if the Provincial Court of Maryland in the 1600’s had issued a decree that the earth was flat, the absence of ‘fraud, mis*444take or irregularity,’ as narrowly defined by this Court, would make that Provincial Court decree sacrosanct. Or, if Rule 2-535(b) were to be given extra-territorial effect, presumably the March 5, 1616, decree by a tribunal in Rome, aimed at Galileo Galilei, and declaring that Copernicanism is erroneous and that the planet earth is the center of the universe, would be given conclusive effect. Like the courts below, I do not believe that all common sense must be abandoned in the name of Rule 2-535(b).”
Id. at 330-31, 648 A.2d at 452.
The same focus apparently guided the General Assembly to overrule our decision, as the majority points out. See 359 Md. at 412, 754 A.2d at 397. Bills for that purpose were introduced in both the House of Delegates and the Senate to address “a fairness issue at stake here.” That issue was described as “the inequality exhibited in the recent publicized cases of 2 men who accepted paternity and child support only to discover they were not the biological father, yet had to continue support payments.” Testimony of Senator Paula Hollinger before the House Judiciary Committee. As originally proposed both the House and Senate versions of the bill amending § 5-1038 would have permitted the modification or setting aside of paternity judgments, like any other order relating to paternity, “as the court considers just and proper in light of the circumstances and in the best interests of the child.” Under that formulation, former § 5-1038(b) was amended to delete the exception for a declaration of paternity from its coverage. That approach was abandoned in favor of the present version, which more closely addresses one of the fact patterns addressed in Tandra S. The General Assembly elected to retain the present format and amend only § 5-1038(a). Thus, § 5-1038(b) was left unchanged and § 5-1038(a) was amended to effect the changes deemed necessary to remedy the unfairness. Section 5-1038 now provides:
“(a) Declaration of paternity final; modifications.—
“(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a declaration of paternity in an order is final.
*445“(2)(i) A declaration of paternity may be modified or set aside:
“1. in the manner and to the extent that any order or decree of an equity court is subject to the revisory power of the court under any law, rule, or established principle of practice and procedure in equity; or “2. if a blood or genetic test done in accordance with § 5-1029 of this subtitle establishes the exclusion of the individual named as the father in the order.
“(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, a declaration of paternity may not be modified or set aside if the individual named in the order acknowledged paternity knowing he was not the father.
“(b) Other orders subject to modification.—Except for a declaration of paternity, the court may modify or set aside any order or part of an order under this subtitle as the court considers just and proper in light of the circumstances and in the best interests of the child.”
See, Md.Code (1984, 1999 RepLVol.), § 5-1038 of the Family Law Article.
Section 5-1038 (a) must be read in context to avoid an unintended result. So read, it becomes clear that § 5-1038(a)(2) can neither mean, nor be read to mean, that the Legislature intended the mandatory language of § 5-1029, which applies to the initial determination of paternity, to result in an absolute entitlement to blood tests for anyone who desires and seeks to modify or set aside a declaration of paternity. As this Court has previously observed, statutory interpretation
“begins with the words of the statute, read in light of the full context in which they appear, and in light of external manifestations of intent or general purpose available through other evidence. When the language is clearly consistent with the apparent purpose of the statute and the result is not absurd, no further research is required. Moreover, the analysis of the statute’s language must be undertaken from a commonsensical rather than a technical, per*446spective, always seeking to avoid giving the statute a strained interpretation or one that reaches an absurd result.”
See Bane v. State, 327 Md. 305, 308-09, 609 A.2d 313, 314-15 (1992) (citations and internal quotes omitted). Present § 5-1038(a), like former § 5-1038(a), albeit in more detail, prescribes when a court may modify or set aside a paternity order. It permits such order to be modified or set aside as other orders or decrees of an equity court, subsection (a)(i) 1, or when a blood or genetic test, “done in accordance with § 5-1029” excludes the person named in the order as the father. The amendment, mirroring the Legislature’s intent, is quite specific: it provides a mechanism to avoid the harsh results in Tandra S. by expanding the circumstances in which the court may modify a paternity order; it does no more nor any less. Most assuredly, the amendment does not deal with entitlement of a person named in a paternity decree to a blood or genetic test under § 5-1029 or provide any support for the notion, advanced by the majority, that blood or genetic tests may now be ordered on demand, in aid of a requested modification of a paternity order, for any, or no, reason, other than the uncertainty that the man may now have concerning his paternity of a child as to whom the court entered the paternity order.
To be sure, § 5-1038 does refer to § 5-1029 and a blood or genetic test done in accordance with that section. That is, however, a most slender reed on which to rely for the proposition that the Legislature, by amending § 5-1038, and only that section, intended not only to address the unfairness of the finality rule but, at the same time, to allow any disaffected father under a paternity order to challenge that order and automatically to be assisted in making the challenge by being entitled to § 5-1029’s mandatory blood or genetic test provision. The reed becomes even more slender when it is recalled that § 5-1029 addresses the pre-paternity order situation, when there has been no determination of who the father is; it simply does not apply to the situation that exists in the case sub judice, where paternity has been determined, albeit by *447agreement, and after the time when a blood or genetic test could have, and would have, been ordered, had it been requested.
Section 5-1029 provides:
“(a) (1) The Administration may request the mother, child, and alleged father to submit to blood or genetic tests.
“(2) if the mother, child, or alleged father fails to comply with the request of the Administration, the Administration may apply to the circuit court for an order that directs the individual to submit to the tests.
“(b) On the motion of the Administration, a party to the proceeding, or on its own motion, the court shall order the mother, child, and alleged father to submit to blood or genetic tests to determine whether the alleged father can be excluded as being the father of the child.
“(c) The blood or genetic tests shall be made in a laboratory selected by the court from a list of laboratories provided by the Administration.
“(d) The laboratory shall report the results of each blood or genetic test in writing and in the form the court requires. “(e) A copy of the laboratory report of the blood or genetic test shall be provided to the parties or their counsel in the manner that the court directs.
“(f) (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this subsection, the laboratory report of the blood or genetic test shall be received in evidence if:
“(i) definite exclusion is established; or “(ii) the testing is sufficiently extensive to exclude 97.3% of alleged fathers who are not biological fathers, and the statistical probability of the alleged father’s paternity is at least 97.3%.
“(2) A laboratory report is prima facie evidence of the results of a blood or genetic test.
“(3) (i) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, the laboratory report of the blood or genetic test is admissible in evidence without the presence of a *448doctor or technician from the laboratory that prepared the report if the report:
“1. is signed by the doctor or technician who prepared or verified the report; and
“2. states that the result of the blood or genetic test is as stated in the report.
“(ii) When the laboratory report of the blood or genetic test is admitted in evidence, a doctor or technician from the laboratory that prepared the report is subject to cross-examination by any party to the proceeding if the party who desires cross-examination has subpoenaed the doctor or technician at least 10 days before trial.
“(4) A laboratory report received into evidence establishing a statistical probability of the alleged father’s paternity of at least 99.0% constitutes a rebuttable presumption of his paternity.
“(g) if any individual fails to submit to a blood or genetic test ordered by the court, that refusal, properly introduced in evidence:
“(1) shall be disclosed to the court; and
“(2) may be commented on by counsel.
“(h) (1) unless indigent, the party who requests a blood or genetic test or who secures the appearance in court of a doctor or technician from the laboratory that prepared the report of the blood or genetic test is responsible for the cost of the test and the costs associated with the court appearance. However, if the requesting party prevails in the proceeding, the court shall assess the cost of the blood or genetic test or the costs associated with the court appearance against the other parties to the proceeding.
“(2) if any party chargeable with the cost of the blood or genetic test or the costs associated with court appearance is indigent, the cost of the blood or genetic test or the costs associated with the court appearance shall be borne by the county where the proceeding is pending, except to the extent that the court orders any other party to the proceeding to pay all or part of the cost.
*449“(8) Subject to the right of any party to subpoena a custodian of records at least 10 days before trial, a written statement from the laboratory that prepared the report of the blood or genetic test concerning the cost of the test and the cost associated with the court appearance shall be admissible in evidence without the presence of a custodian of records and shall constitute prima facie evidence of the costs.
“(i) upon motion of the Administration or any party to the proceeding and due consideration by the court, the court shall pass a temporary order for the support of the child if:
“(1) a laboratory report establishes a statistical probability of paternity of at least 99.0%; and “(2) the court determines that the putative father has the ability to provide temporary support for the child.
As even a cursory review of § 5-1029 makes evident, there is more to § 5-1029 than section (b), relating to the ordering of a blood or genetic test. Of particular relevance to the reference in § 5-1038(a) is, I believe, sections (c), (d), (e), and (f), pertaining to where the test is to be conducted, how reported and the effect of the results. It is to these provisions that I think the Legislature clearly had reference, not section (b).
There is yet another reason why I do not believe the Legislature intended the result the majority reaches. The statute provides for modification of the order in the event that a named father obtains a blood or genetic test excluding him as the father; it does not require that such a test be obtained. Had the Legislature intended to facilitate challenges to paternity orders, it undoubtedly would have amended § 5-1029 to provide for testing of fathers named in paternity orders or it would have stated its intention that that be done more clearly in § 5-1038; to provide for the absolute entitlement to blood or genetic testing after a legal determination of paternity has been made, the General Assembly could, and, I submit, would, have clearly stated in § 5-1038(a) that, although already determined to be the father, a man nevertheless has an absolute right to a blood or genetic test, thus clearly rejecting the best interest of the child standard. I cannot believe that it chose *450this method, at best circuitous and ambiguous, to accomplish something so important and with such potential for mischief, not only to the children who might be affected, but to the system itself.4
Moreover, the intent the majority attributes to the Legislature is inconsistent with the purpose driving the amendment in the first place. Senator Hollinger, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee disavowed any intention to leave children “fatherless and without support,” one of the reasons given by Chief Judge Murphy for the decision, which he authored, in Tandra S. Under the majority view, it is quite possible that many children could be left “fatherless and without support,” at least from their parent.5
*451The majority holds that the best interest of the child has no role to play in the decision to modify or set aside a paternity order. Underlying this holding is the majority’s interpretation of § 5-1038(a) to require blood or genetic testing to be ordered pursuant to § 5-1029.6 I do not quarrel with the proposition that the best interest of the child is not implicated when a blood test is ordered under the latter section. That section, as I have shown, governs the situation when paternity is still an open question, when there has been neither agreement nor adjudication of the fact. In that situation, the *452question is one of historical fact, which, until decided, cannot have anything to do with the child’s best interest.
A different situation is presented, however, after paternity has been determined, whether by agreement or adjudication. Then, the best interest of the child necessarily is involved. The historical fact of parentage no longer stands alone; now it is intertwined with the interests of the child and no longer is capable of separation. Once paternity is established, § 5-1029 has no further role to play in that arena. The amendment to § 5-1038 does not change that, in my view, without, as there is not in this case, an amendment making it so. Contrary to the majority view, while the amendment permits the modification of paternity judgments when there has been blood or genetic testing and it excludes the named father, it does not address the named father’s entitlement to such testing and, consequently, it does not restrict the consideration of the best interest of the child before any post-paternity blood or genetic testing is ordered. Thus, whether, after paternity has been determined, there will be, or should be, a blood test ordered is not a question directed to § 5-1029, but to the trial judge, to be decided in light of the relevant circumstances, including, therefore, the best interests of the child.
The cases sub judice are exactly the type of cases in which our case law dictates, and the General Assembly envisioned, that the best interest of the child standard would be applied. Through no fault of their own, the children in these cases have been forced into highly stressful paternity proceedings that may significantly impact the rest of their lives. Ironically, while they are at the center of these disputes, the records contain no information about where they live, where they go to school, whether they are healthy, what their current family life is like or even whether they are aware of these proceedings. Moreover, the records contain little or no information about the relationship between the children and their legal fathers, who would disown them, or whether the blood tests will promote a relationship with a new parent. More disturbing, these proceedings are occurring more than ten years after the paternity of the children has been determined legally, poten*453tially disrupting any stability in their family life, and destroying any confidence they may have in our legal system. In my view, even though permitted to modify a paternity order on a more liberal basis than before, “the discretion to modify or set aside otherwise final orders merely because they are entered in a paternity case is a remedy which must be exercised with the utmost caution.” Jessica G. v. Hector M., 337 Md. 388, 401, 653 A.2d 922, 929 (1995). This caution must include considering the welfare of the child.
Maryland has consistently required that the best interest of the child standard be applied in matters affecting the welfare of children. See, e.g., Pangle v. Pangle, 134 Md. 166, 170, 106 A. 337, 338 (1919) (holding that the primary concern in deciding child custody cases is promoting the child’s highest welfare); Turner v. Whisted, 327 Md. 106, 117, 607 A.2d 935, 940 (1992) (holding that the best interest of the child is the “paramount concern” in determining whether to order blood tests to determine paternity); Monroe v. Monroe, 329 Md. 758, 773, 621 A.2d 898, 905 (1993) (holding that the trial court erred by not considering whether ordering blood tests to disestablish paternity was in the best interest of the child); Sider v. Sider, 334 Md. 512, 527, 639 A.2d 1076, 1083 (1994) (holding that “the ‘best interest of the child standard’ should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition”); Adoption/Guardianship No. 10941, 335 Md. 99, 113, 642 A.2d 201, 208 (1994) (holding that a child’s interest supercedes that of its natural parents).
To be sure, this Court must presume that the Legislature was aware of the body of case law applying the best interest of the child standard when it enacted, and subsequently amended, § 5-1038(a). See City of Baltimore v. Hackley, 300 Md. 277, 283, 477 A.2d 1174 (1984); Board of Educ., Garrett Co. v. Lendo, 295 Md. 55, 63, 453 A.2d 1185 (1982); Williams v. State, 292 Md. 201, 210, 438 A.2d 1301 (1981). Indeed, reading this Court’s precedents regarding the application of the best interest of the child standard in paternity proceedings involving blood test requests, see Turner v. Whisted, supra, 327 Md. 106, 607 A.2d 935, Monroe v. Monroe, supra, 329 Md. 758, 621 *454A.2d 898, and Sider v. Sider, supra, 334 Md. 512, 639 A.2d 1076, together with § 5-1038(a), as revised, makes clear that the best interest of the child standard remains applicable. It is significant, I repeat, that while making amendments the Legislature did not provide for, or even address, the petitioner’s entitlement to testing in § 5-1038(a). It is also significant that § 5-1029 outlines procedures for the initial paternity hearing, not its subsequent modification.
Yet the majority ignores the significant impact these proceedings may have on the children involved. Here, via a modification proceeding, the trial courts are presented with a conflict between a valid paternity determination, resulting from court proceedings, and a claim of non-paternity, for the confirmation of which a blood test conducted in accordance with § 5-1029 is sought. Contrary to the majority view, the prior legal determination of paternity makes the decision to order a blood test, not a simple one to determine a biological fact, but an enormously complex decision affecting the welfare of the child whose paternity is at issue. The result of the blood test may require the modification of a former declaration, or, where the parties are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage, presumption of paternity, and the uprooting of a child’s foundation, potentially resulting in significant mental, emotional and psychological stress to the child. As this Court noted in Monroe v. Monroe, supra:
“Significant to the best interest determination is the desirability, from the child’s perspective, of establishing that the man that is the only father the child has ever known ... and who has acknowledged the child, is, in fact, not the child’s father. The effect of that determination is not only to establish that the person who the child regarded as her father, is, in fact, not her father, but also to establish that she has no known father.”
329 Md. at 773, 621 A.2d at 905 (emphasis added). Hardly can one argue that the General Assembly intended that the best interest of children under these circumstances be disregarded or ignored, especially where paternity has been legally declared ten years prior.
*455Under the majority view, the trial court is required, mechanically, to order a blood test and thus risk disturbing a legally established paternity judgment, irrespective of the impact the test may have on the child or the child’s family life. In my view, even with the technological advances and resulting increased certainty of identifying the biological parents through blood testing and DNA analysis, courts still must respect and consider the “best interest of the child” and make a determination independently based on the facts in the record before ordering blood tests. See Monroe, supra, 329 Md. at 769, 621 A.2d at 903 (holding that “when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child, as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes, and the policy of this State, it must first be tested in light of [the best interest of the child] standard”). See also, Turner, supra, 327 Md. at 117, 607 A.2d at 940.
Many of our sister states agree. For example, the Supreme Court of Kansas when addressing whether blood tests should be conducted in a paternity action involving competing presumptions of paternity held that prior to deciding whether to order blood tests to determine whether a presumed parent is the biological parent, the trial court must consider the best interests of the child, including its physical, mental, and emotional needs. In Re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 783 P.2d 331, 338-339 (1989). In that case, a mother brought a paternity action on behalf of her child against both her former husband and the alleged biological father. When blood tests proved that the alleged biological father was in fact the biological father, the trial court ordered him to pay child support and granted joint custody to the mother and her former husband. Id. at 333-34. The Kansas intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling but held that a best interest of the child evidentiary hearing did not have to be held before making such a determination. Id. at 334. Criticizing the intermediate court for placing judicial economy ahead of bastardizing a child, the Supreme Court of Kansas reversed the intermediate appellate court with regard to the application of the best interest of the child standard conclud*456ing that “[t]he mere filing of a paternity action does not automatically imply that the action is in the child’s best interests. A court must reach this conclusion independently based on the facts in the record.” Id. at 339.
Similarly in McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wash'.2d 299, 738 P.2d 254 (1987), the Supreme Court of Washington addressing competing presumptions of paternity held that:
“the mere filing of a paternity action does not automatically imply that the action is in the child’s best interest. A court must reach this conclusion independently based on the facts in the record and the recommendations of the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of the child.”
Id. at 262. There, the plaintiff sought blood tests to establish his paternity of a child born while the mother of the child was married to another man. While holding that it was necessary for the trial court to consider the impact of a paternity action on the child before the paternity proceedings, the Supreme Court of Washington reasoned:
“Child development experts widely stress the importance of stability and predictability in parent/child relationships, even where the parent figure is not the natural parent. .... A paternity suit, by its very nature, threatens the stability of the child’s world. We are concerned that the best interests of the child standard, too broadly interpreted, could become a blanket license for any person to disrupt long-fostered family relationships by claiming to be the parent of a child. It may be true that a child’s interests are generally served by accurate, as opposed to inaccurate or stipulated, paternity determinations. However, it is possible that in some circumstances a child’s interests will be even better served by no paternity determination at all. The best interests of the child standard does not entitle a court to presume that paternity determination is automatically in the child’s best interest. Therefore, absent a showing that such determination is in fact within the child’s best *457interests, this standard cannot be invoked on behalf of someone other than the child.”
Id. at 261. (citations omitted).
Other courts have followed the sound reasoning in McDaniels and Ross. See, In re Paternity of “Adam, ” 273 Mont. 351, 903 P.2d 207, 211 (1995) (holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted); M.F. v. N.H., 252 N.J.Super. 420, 599 A.2d 1297 (A.D.1991) (holding that although a putative father had standing to bring a paternity action, the action could not proceed and the blood tests could not be ordered, unless the trial court determined that the paternity action would serve the best interest of the child.); Weidenbacher v. Duclos, 234 Conn. 51, 661 A.2d 988, 993 (1995) (recognizing that the best interest of the child is a paramount consideration in determining whether to order blood tests); Ban v. Quigley, 168 Ariz. 196, 812 P.2d 1014, 1017 (App.1990) (holding that the trial court must specifically consider whether it would be in the best interest of the child for the case to proceed before a putative father may be permitted to seek blood tests in an attempt to rebut the presumption of paternity). Moreover, although not specifically interpreting the Family Law Article at issue here, this Court in Turner, supra, 327 Md. 106, 607 A.2d 935, citing with approval McDaniels and Ross, held that a motion for a blood test to determine paternity was impeded, but not absolutely precluded, by a presumption that a minor was the legitimate child of the man to whom the natural mother was married at the time of birth, and therefore, the trial court could have and should have held a hearing to determine whether ordering a blood test would be in the best interest of the child. Id. at 117, 607 A.2d at 940. See also, Monroe, supra, 329 Md. at 771, 621 A.2d at 904.
In support of its position that the best interest of the child should not be considered here, the majority relies on one intermediate appellate court decision from the state of Minnesota. See, Spaeth v. Warren, 478 N.W.2d 319 (Minn.Ct.App. 1991). It argues that the Spaeth court, under similar facts *458and interpreting a statute with similar legislative history,7 held that the best interest analysis was not to be considered in adjudicating paternity. See id. at 322. Spaeth, however, is distinguishable. What’s more, it emphasizes more the unfortunate result reached in this case and does little to support the majority’s position.
Spaeth involved a challenge to a summary judgment order granted in favor of the undisputed father in a paternity action. There, the trial court did not join the child or the child’s mother’s husband as a party and it did not consider the best interest of the child in its determination. Id. at 321-22. The mother of the child and her current husband appealed arguing that the trial court should have applied the best interest of the child standard before making a judgment of paternity. The appellate court rejected this argument and affirmed the trial court ruling, reasoning that “[a] child’s best interests simply are irrelevant to the biological determination.” Id. at 323.
Unlike the present cases, Spaeth did not involve a challenge to a legal judgment of paternity, nor did it involve a challenge to a presumption of paternity. Where there are conflicting presumptions of paternity, Minnesota courts, consistent with a significant majority of courts throughout the country, have clearly distinguished the holding in Spaeth and consistently applied the best interest of the child standard. See Kelly v. Cataldo, 488 N.W.2d 822, 826 (Minn.App.1992) (clarifying that Spaeth’s rejection of the best interest of the child standard is not applicable precedent where there are conflicting presumptions of paternity.); Matter of Welfare of C.M.G., 516 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Minn.App.1994) (applying the best interest of the child standard in determining whether a blood test should be conducted to establish paternity and holding that “[wjhere competing presumptions of paternity exist, the determination of paternity in no longer solely an issue of biological fact.”); Murphy v. Myers, 560 N.W.2d 752, 756 (Minn.App.1997) (upholding the application of the best interest of the child stan*459dard in paternity action where trial court ordered blood tests be conducted).
The facts in Spaeth are not only distinguishable, but they illustrate a flaw in the majority’s analysis that cannot be supported by the legislative history of the statute. Assuming arguendo a similar factual scenario as that in Spaeth occurred in Maryland, applying the majority view in this case, the “undisputed” father who has been legally recognized as the parent of the child may decide at any time after the paternity judgment to reopen the proceedings by demanding a blood test based on little more than a newly developed hunch that he is not the biological father, without regard to the best interest of the child, so long as he did not acknowledge paternity knowing he was the father. See § 5—1038(a)(2)(ii). In addition, another man may, provided he has standing, reopen the legal determination of paternity by demanding a blood test, also without regard to the best interest of the child. I am convinced that if the legislature intended such a drastic result, it would have carefully and clearly written it into the statute.
I do, as forcefully as possible, dissent.

1. I agree that the Legislature intended the amendment to be retroactive. Having acted with the dispatch that it did, it is inconceivable that it would intend that any meritorious case would be left without a remedy.

2. Maryland Rule 2-535 provides, in relevant part:
"(a) Generally. On motion of any party filed within 30 days after entry of judgment, the court may exercise revisory power and control over the judgment and, if the action was tried before the court, may take any action that it could have taken under Rule 2-534.
"(b) Fraud, Mistake, Irregularity. On motion of any party filed at any time, the court may exercise revisory power and control over the judgment in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity.”

. Maryland Code (1974, 1989 Repl.Vol.) § 6-408 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article provided:
"For a period of 30 days after the entry of a judgment, or thereafter pursuant to motion filed within that period, the court has revisory power and control over the judgment. After the expiration of that period the court has revisory power and control over the judgment only in case of fraud, mistake, irregularity, or failure of an employee of the court or of the clerk’s office to perform a duty required by statute or rule.”

. It is not inconceivable, and, indeed, quite probable, that there will be a number of requests for blood and genetic tests made by men who agreed to paternity, but, now, behind in payments or perhaps regretting the initial decision, will take a shot at obtaining a modification; after all, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The only losers under the majority opinion are the children. This is ironic since the policy of this State as to those children has been stated clearly:
"Purpose.—The purpose of this subtitle is:
(1) to promote the general welfare and best interests of children bom out of wedlock by securing for them, as nearly as practicable, the same rights to support, care, and education as children born in wedlock;
(2) to impose on the mothers and fathers of children born out of wedlock the basic obligations and responsibilities of parenthood; and
(3) to simplify the procedures for determining paternity, custody, guardianship, and responsibility for the support of children born out of wedlock." (Emphasis added)

. The majority cites a letter contained in the Senate bill file from Joan M Knight, Acting Executive Director of the Child Support Enforcement Administration, for the proposition that the Legislature "excluded [the best interest of the child standard] from the determination of whether to set aside a prior paternity declaration.” 359 Md. at 426, 754 A.2d at 405. That letter states, "[W]e are concerned that ‘the best interest of the child’ is not provided for in Section (2) and request that the bill be amended to include the best interests of the child in any decision to dissolve a declaration of paternity.” Aside from the fact that it is inappropriate to discern legislative history from such a document, it in no way necessarily reflecting the views held by even one Legislator, when read in context of the "fairness issues” and "inequality” in *451Tandra S. that the amendments to § 5-1038(a) were designed to address, however, and the overall purpose of subtitle 10, the letter was more likely dismissed and rejected as a misinterpretation of the statute. Most assuredly, if concerns raised in the letter were considered to be a valid interpretation of the statute, the Legislature would likely have more clearly rejected the application of the best interest of the child standard in § 5-1038(a) and more explicitly provided for modification of paternity blood or genetic testing procedures in § 5-1029, specifically by, most probably, precluding consideration of the child’s welfare before the test is ordered. Absent these changes, § 5-1038(a)(2) cannot mean that the Legislature intended the mandatory language of § 5-1029 to result in an absolute entitlement to blood tests in cases where a declaration of paternity is sought to be modified or set aside.

. The majority also states:
"[T]he plain language of section 5—1038(b) states that “[ejxcept for a declaration of paternity, the court may modify or set aside any order or part of an order under this subtitle as the court considers just and proper in light of the circumstances and in the best interests of the child.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, the "best interests” standard is only to be considered by the trial court in matters corollary to the paternity declaration, such as custody, visitation, "giving bond,” or “any other matter that is related to the general welfare and best interests of the child.” See § 5-1035(a) of the Family Law Article (enumerating additional provisions to which a circuit court may grant an order in conjunction with a paternity declaration).”
359 Md. at 426, 754 A.2d at 405. Despite proposed revisions by both the House and the Senate, § 5-1038(b) went unchanged in the final version of the statute. Thus, the best interest of the child standard continues to apply in those areas where it applied prior to § 5-1038’s amendment. The decision not to change the language, at most, suggests that the Legislature decided to embrace the overall goals and purpose of the statute, favoring finality of paternity judgments. It does not suggest at all that the Legislature intended to address the applicability of the best interest of the child standard when the issue is the petitioner’s right to a blood or genetic test.

. See UPA § 13, 9B U.L.A. 320 (1987); Minn.Stat. § 257.64 (1990).