Downs v. King

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Downs v. King

703 So. 2d 1116, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12720, 1997 WL 716841

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1997

DocketNo. 96-05303

StatusPublished

This text of 703 So. 2d 1116 (Downs v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Downs v. King, 703 So. 2d 1116, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12720, 1997 WL 716841 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant challenges the dismissal of his petition for parental and grandparental visitation rights. We find no merit in appellant’s argument regarding grandparental visitation rights since he has no standing to bring an action for visitation on behalf of his mother. See ch. 752, Fla. Stat. (1995). We do, however, find merit in appellant’s argument that he is entitled to a determination of paternity before dismissal of his petition in regard to the request for his own visitation rights.

Appellant sought visitation rights to the minor child for himself and his mother. Appellee (maternal grandmother) responded to the motion and argued that the court had no jurisdiction to rule on appellant’s motion since the child was born out of wedlock, there had been no determination regarding paternity, and she was the guardian of the child pursuant to an award of temporary custody through the dependency court. The trial court dismissed appellant’s petition. On appeal, appellant contends that since his name is on the birth certificate, he has always held himself out to be the biological father of the [1117]*1117child, and the family has always recognized him as such, he is entitled to a paternity test. We agree.

Chapter 742 provides a means for individuals to seek a determination of paternity when there is a legitimate interest in such determination. See Rogers v. Runnels, 448 So.2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). While chapter 742 was initially intended to be the exclusive legal remedy for a mother to establish paternity, the statute does not preclude an action by a father to adjudicate paternity where necessary to determine certain existing rights. See Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So.2d 53 (Fla.1980); Guerrero v. Staglish, 400 So.2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(recogniz-ing the right of a putative father to couple a request for visitation rights with an action seeking to adjudicate paternity).

In the instant case, the issue of paternity must be resolved before there can be a consideration of the visitation relief sought by appellant. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court order dismissing his petition for parental visitation rights. Although appellee argued on appeal that the action was properly dismissed since appellant erroneously cited to Florida Statute 744.301, we note that appellant filed his petition pro se. It is clear that appellant is entitled to relief even though his petition was not perfectly drafted.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further consideration.

PARKER, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant challenges the dismissal of his petition for parental and grandparental visitation rights. We find no merit in appellant’s argument regarding grandparental visitation rights since he has no standing to bring an action for visitation on behalf of his mother. See ch. 752, Fla. Stat. (1995). We do, however, find merit in appellant’s argument that he is entitled to a determination of paternity before dismissal of his petition in regard to the request for his own visitation rights.

Appellant sought visitation rights to the minor child for himself and his mother. Appellee (maternal grandmother) responded to the motion and argued that the court had no jurisdiction to rule on appellant’s motion since the child was born out of wedlock, there had been no determination regarding paternity, and she was the guardian of the child pursuant to an award of temporary custody through the dependency court. The trial court dismissed appellant’s petition. On appeal, appellant contends that since his name is on the birth certificate, he has always held himself out to be the biological father of the [1117]*1117child, and the family has always recognized him as such, he is entitled to a paternity test. We agree.

Chapter 742 provides a means for individuals to seek a determination of paternity when there is a legitimate interest in such determination. See Rogers v. Runnels, 448 So.2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). While chapter 742 was initially intended to be the exclusive legal remedy for a mother to establish paternity, the statute does not preclude an action by a father to adjudicate paternity where necessary to determine certain existing rights. See Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So.2d 53 (Fla.1980); Guerrero v. Staglish, 400 So.2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(recogniz-ing the right of a putative father to couple a request for visitation rights with an action seeking to adjudicate paternity).

In the instant case, the issue of paternity must be resolved before there can be a consideration of the visitation relief sought by appellant. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court order dismissing his petition for parental visitation rights. Although appellee argued on appeal that the action was properly dismissed since appellant erroneously cited to Florida Statute 744.301, we note that appellant filed his petition pro se. It is clear that appellant is entitled to relief even though his petition was not perfectly drafted.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further consideration.

PARKER, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 So. 2d 1116, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12720, 1997 WL 716841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downs-v-king-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack