Mulligan v. Corbett

BARBERA, J.,

dissenting, in which RAKER, J., joins.

I dissent. I have a quarrel with certain of the reasoning of the Majority, as well as its ultimate conclusion that a child conceived during marriage, though born after her mother has divorced, was not “born out of wedlock,” and, therefore, the *701child’s self-alleged biological father may not invoke the mandatory blood testing provisions of the Paternity Proceedings subtitle (Paternity subtitle), codified at Maryland Code (1999, 2006 Repl.Vol. & 2010 Supp.), § 5-1001 through § 5-1048 of the Family Law Article (FL)1.

For reasons I explain, I agree…