Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 11 September Term, 2008 _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, EX REL. ANDREA ALLISON v. KEITH SCOTT MITCHELL, SR. _____________________________________ *Salmon, Meredith, Woodward, JJ.

Opinion by Woodward, J. _____________________________________ Filed: January 27, 2011 *James P. Salmon, J., participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; he participated in the adoption of this opinion as a specially assigned member of this Court.

Appellants, the Maryland Department of Human Resources and Montgomery County Office of Child Support Enforcement ("MCOCSE") 1 , appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County regarding child support due to Andrea Allison ("Andrea"), a resident of Alabama, for the care of her children, Diana Allison ("Diana") 2 and Keith Scott Mitchell, Jr. ("Keith Jr."). In January 2007, MCOCSE registered with the circuit court a 1992 New York divorce decree that ordered appellee, Keith Scott Mitchell, Sr. ("Keith Sr."), to pay child support for his children, Diana and Keith Jr. Keith Sr. at first contested registration of the order but then withdrew his challenge. Later, Keith Sr. and MCOCSE agreed to a Consent Modified Child Support Order. The consent order provided, inter alia , that Keith Sr. was no longer obligated to support Keith Jr. because Keith Jr. was emancipated and that Keith Sr.'s support obligation for Diana was increased. At the time of the filing of the consent order, however, Keith Sr. filed a request to set aside the declaration of his paternity of Diana. After a DNA test was conducted, it was revealed that Keith Sr. was not Diana's biological father. Thereafter, over MCOCSE's opposition, the circuit court excluded Keith Sr. as the father of Diana, vacated the registration of the New York decree and the Maryland consent order, and nullified Keith Sr.'s child support arrears relating to Diana. This appeal followed. MCOCSE presents one question for our review, which we have rephrased as two

1

We will refer to appellants simply as "MCOCSE."

Throughout the pleadings and record this child is variably referred to as Deanna and Diana. Because we have been provided no explanation for this inconsistency, we have chosen to utilize the name recorded on the 1992 New York divorce decree, Diana.

2

questions 3 : I. Did the circuit court err in concluding that the parentage of Diana had not been determined previously by the State of New York? Did the circuit court err in permitting Keith Sr. to utilize the defense of nonparentage in the proceeding to register and enforce the New York divorce decree?

II.

Finding error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Keith Sr. and Andrea (then Andrea Mitchell) were granted a Divorce Judgment in New York, on March 18, 1992 (the "New York divorce decree" or the "New York support order"). The New York divorce decree noted that Andrea would have custody "of the child(ren) of the marriage, i.e." Keith Jr., born June 8, 1987, and Diana, born February 17, 1990. The decree further ordered Keith Sr. to pay child support to Andrea in the total amount of $62 per week "for all children." On January 24, 2007, at the request of Alabama, MCOCSE filed the New York support order in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA"),4 along with a request to file a foreign child support order. On February 15, 2007, Keith Sr., acting pro se , filed an answer to the request to file
3

MCOCSE's question is: "Did the circuit court err in excluding [Keith Sr.] as the father of his daughter, when it allowed nonparentage as a defense to enforcement of child support, despite a 1992 New York divorce judgment that found him to be the father?" All references to UIFSA are to the Maryland Code (1984, 2006 Repl. Vol., 2010 Cum. Supp.), Family Law Article. 2
4

a foreign child support order in which he raised the defense that Keith Jr. was emancipated. In his answer, Keith Sr. made no mention of Diana or his parentage of her. On April 11, 2007, a hearing was held before a Special Master of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on Keith Sr.'s opposition to MCOCSE's request to file a foreign child support order. At that hearing Keith Sr. withdrew his opposition to the registration of the foreign order. Keith Sr. also signed a Line, filed on April 19, 2007, stating that "[Keith Sr.] withdraws his petition/opposition to registration of the Foreign Support Order." Meanwhile, on March 6, 2007, MCOCSE filed a Motion for Modification of the foreign support order in which MCOCSE claimed that the "incomes and expenses of the custodial and non-custodial parents have materially changed, warranting an

increase/decrease in the amount of support." On April 11, 2007, Keith Sr. filed an answer to MCOCSE's motion for modification denying that there had been a material change in the parties' incomes and expenses warranting an increase in the amount of child support. That same day Keith Sr. also filed a Counter-Petition/Motion to Modify Child Support. In his counter-petition, Keith Sr. alleged that "our eldest child, Keith Jr. is emancipated by age and other factors." Again, Keith Sr. failed to mention Diana or his parentage of her. Indeed, in the request for relief in his counter-petition, Keith Sr. asked the circuit court, among other things, to "reduce the number of minor children from 2 to 1." On June 21, 2007, a hearing was held on MCOCSE's motion for modification before a Special Master of the circuit court. At that hearing, a Consent Modified Child Support

3

Order between Keith Sr. and MCOCSE was submitted to the court. The consent order increased Keith Sr.'s child support obligation from $62.00 per week for both children to $483.00 per month for Diana and eliminated any ongoing support obligation for Keith Jr. The consent order also set forth Keith Sr.'s total arrears for both children at $41,345.83 as of June 21, 2007. On June 21, 2007, Keith Sr. also filed a Request to Set Aside Declaration of Paternity and Request for Modification of Child Support. In his request, Keith Sr. stated his belief that he was not Diana's father because, according to Keith Sr., Andrea "admitted I am not the Father and I was in military [sic] when child was conceived." In the request, Keith Sr. asked the court to order the parties and Diana to undergo a DNA test to determine whether Keith Sr. could be excluded as Diana's father. MCOCSE filed no response to Keith Sr.'s request for genetic testing, and on July 12, 2007, the circuit court entered an order granting the requested test. On October 11, 2007, MCOCSE filed the results of a paternity test, which determined that Keith Sr. was not Diana's biological father. On October 17, 2007, MCOCSE filed a response to Keith Sr.'s Request to Set Aside Declaration of Paternity and Request for Modification of Child Support. In its response, MCOCSE claimed that Keith Sr.'s paternity of Diana had been determined under the law of New York by virtue of the New York divorce decree and that under Maryland Code (1984, 2006 Repl. Vol.),

Download Montgomery County v. Mitchell.pdf

Maryland Law