## Facts

- Shortly after the December 2009 birth of Jessica Cook’s twin sons, Justin Davis and Cook executed affidavits of parentage for each child stating Davis was the natural father; the children were given Davis’s last name.
- In 2011, the Wicomico County Bureau of Support Enforcement filed a child-support action relying on the affidavits.
- At the 2011 support hearing, Davis (pro se) denied paternity and asked for genetic testing; the court denied testing and entered a child-support order treating the affidavits as establishing paternity. Davis did not appeal.
- In 2013, Davis filed a new action seeking a court-ordered genetic test, to strike the affidavit-based paternity determination, and to set aside the 2011 support order, alleging his signature was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
- The record contained no supporting evidence of fraud or misrepresentation; Cook testified she told Davis during pregnancy he was not the father, but he signed the affidavits after the birth anyway.

## Issues

1. Whether a man who executed affidavits of parentage may later obtain court-ordered genetic testing under Maryland Family Law §§ 5-1029 and 5-1038 to disprove paternity.
2. Whether affidavit-based paternity and an unappealed support order may be set aside without proof of statutory grounds such as fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Bureau.
- Davis was not entitled to a court-ordered blood/genetic test on this record.
- Davis was not entitled to set aside the affidavit-based paternity determination or the ensuing child-support order absent proof satisfying the statute’s limited challenge grounds.

## Legal Principles

- A properly executed affidavit of parentage under Maryland Family Law § 5-1028 has binding legal effect and functions like a paternity judgment once the rescission period has passed.
- Maryland Family Law § 5-1029 does not create an automatic right to genetic testing after paternity has been established by a binding affidavit and incorporated into an unappealed support order.
- Relief from affidavit-based paternity under §§ 5-1028 and 5-1038 requires proof of statutory predicates (fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact); unsupported allegations are insufficient to reopen paternity or compel testing.
- Summary judgment is proper where the challenger fails to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on the statutory grounds for rescission or modification.

## Conclusion

The court held that Maryland’s statutory scheme gives finality to unrescinded affidavits of parentage; without evidence of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, a signatory cannot compel genetic testing years later or undo a paternity-based support order.


Davis v. Wicomico Cnty. Bureau of Support Enf’t, 447 Md. 302, 135 A.3d 419 (Md. 2016)