Cnn.com reported about a case in Massachusetts in which a father is held responsible for children conceived through in vitro fertilization after the couple separated. At first blush, the result seemed unfair to the father. According to the article however, the man consented the fertilization, and the article implies that that the parties are still married. That being the case, I expect this couple would have seen a similar result under Maryland law as well.
The husband claimed he only consented to the fertilization "under duress" which the court did not accept. Again, probably a similar result in Maryland, as it can be quite difficult to prove duress. In the law, duress does not generally mean that the party simply didn't like the agreement or or thought they could have received a better deal.