2032

LAWS OF MARYLAND

Ch. 296

A COMPLAINT UNDER THIS SUBTITLE IS NOT BARRED BECAUSE THE
CHILD BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK WAS CONCEIVED OR BORN OUTSIDE THIS
STATE.

REVISOR'S NOTE: Subsections (a) and (b) of this section are
new language derived without substantive change from
former Article 16, § 66(e).

Subsection (c) of this section is new language derived
without substantive change from former Article 16, §
66(d).

In subsection (a)(2) of this section, the term "a
minor" is substituted for the former phrase "under the
age of 18 years", for brevity.

The Commission to Revise the Annotated Code notes, for
consideration by the General Assembly, that in Pickett

v. Brown, ___ U.S. ____ (1983), the Court unanimously

struck down a 2-year statute that is similar to the
statute set out in § 5-1006(a) of this article.

The Court held that because the 2-year limitation
period established by the Tennessee statute does not
provide certain illegitimate children (i.e., those who
are not likely to become public charges) with an
adequate opportunity to obtain support and is not
substantially related to the legitimate state interest
in preventing the litigation of stale or fraudulent
claims, the statute denies those illegitimate children
the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the
14th Amendment.

In Frick v. Maldonado, 296 Md. 304 (1983) the Court of
Appeals of Maryland, relying on Pickett, overruled
Thompson v. Thompson, 285 Md. 488 (1979). Thompson
had upheld the constitutionality of the 2-year statute
of limitation on paternity actions set out in former
Article 16," § 66(e) of the Code, from which §
5-1006(a) of this article is derived.

Defined terms: "Complaint" § 5-1001
"Support" § 1-101

5-1007. INCONSISTENT STATUTES OR RULES.

ANY 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; AND

(2) NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SUBTITLE.