Issue of a Surprise Paternity Result: Ashley v. Mattingly

Published on
August 29, 2022
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Custody and Child Support

In the past, we’ve talked a bit about paternity law in the State of Maryland and the various issues associated with paternity testing, the presumption of legitimacy (in marriage), and other related matters. There are many cases in Maryland that we can look to for additional guidance in this area. One case from the late 2000s shows the importance of confirming paternity as early as possible. The fact scenario involved may be quite uncommon, but the case of Ashley v. Mattingly does a good job of illustrating the need for paternity testing.

Basic Factual Overview

The litigants of this case were married in 1980. Before their relationship, the wife (Mattingly) was in a romantic relationship with another man, and this previous relationship ceased before her involvement with her soon-to-be husband (Patrick Ashley). Mr. Ashley was aware of Mattingly’s involvement with this other man before his relationship with her, and so he requested that she take a pregnancy test to determine her status. After the test revealed that she was not pregnant, the couple married. And then 8 months later, Mattingly gave birth to a child. Because of the negative test result and the timing of the birth, they assumed that Ashley was the biological father.The couple separated soon after the birth of the child, and subsequently, a parenting plan was created, along with a child support obligation. Eventually, Ashley began to suspect that the child was not biologically related to him because of visual observation. A DNA test ultimately determined that he was not the child's biological father. Based on this new DNA evidence, Ashley and Mattingly proceeded to engage in a prolonged legal battle. Ashley attempted to set aside the original custody order, including his child support obligation. The entire ordeal lasted for a long time, both sides filed appeals and multiple motions.Finally, the final appellate court remanded the case and called for the lower court to consider the issue of genetic testing concerning the "best interests of the child" standard. In the State of Maine, there is a presumption that any child born in wedlock is the biological offspring of the married parties. Mattingly attempted to use this presumption to overcome the results of genetic testing. The last appellate court stated that the lower court needs to determine whether this presumption is consistent with the best interests standard in this situation.

Lessons from the Paternity Case

We can take away plenty of things from this case, but the most critical lesson is that we should pursue DNA testing at the earliest stage possible. In this case, a critical event was the negative pregnancy test result prior to the marriage, but even that result shouldn’t have precluded genetic testing. Ultimately, the discovery that Ashley wasn’t the father drove considerable pain and hardship. Ashley had been financially and emotionally supporting a child to which he wasn’t biologically related, something which would be very difficult for any person. Although Maryland has a presumption of legitimacy in the context of marriage, even this shouldn’t be relied upon in all situations, as this case shows us.

Contact The Murphy Law Firm for More Information

We will likely continue with our new format and discuss more recent family law cases in the near future. If you’d like to learn more, reach out to The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Ashley v. Mattingly|Biological father|Child custody|child custody battle|Child Support|Custody Order|Divorce|divorce issues|DNA Evidence|DNA Testing|Family Law|Maryland Family Law Cases|Maryland Paternity Law|Parenting|Paternity|Paternity Law|Paternity Testing|surprise paternity result|surprise paternity test

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.