Flynn v. McCraney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Flynn v. McCraney

199 So. 3d 569, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14021, 2016 WL 4992435

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 2016

DocketNo. 1D15-5802

StatusPublished

This text of 199 So. 3d 569 (Flynn v. McCraney) 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

Flynn v. McCraney, 199 So. 3d 569, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14021, 2016 WL 4992435 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Bryan Flynn appeals the trial court’s final order adopting the general [570]*570magistrate’s Report and Recommendation dismissing Flynn’s petition seeking to establish paternity,- time-sharing, and other related relief. Because the minor child was born to the intact marriage of Amber and Christopher McCraney, we affirm the final order in all respects. See Slowinski v. Sweeney, 64 So.3d 128, 128-29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a child born to an intact marriage cannot be the subject of a paternity proceeding brought by a biological father and determining it was fundamental error for the trial court to grant relief pursuant to a nonexistent cause of action); see also Sirdevan v. Strand, 120 So.3d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), rev. denied, 147 So.3d 527 (Fla.2014) (table).

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Bryan Flynn appeals the trial court’s final order adopting the general [570]*570magistrate’s Report and Recommendation dismissing Flynn’s petition seeking to establish paternity,- time-sharing, and other related relief. Because the minor child was born to the intact marriage of Amber and Christopher McCraney, we affirm the final order in all respects. See Slowinski v. Sweeney, 64 So.3d 128, 128-29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a child born to an intact marriage cannot be the subject of a paternity proceeding brought by a biological father and determining it was fundamental error for the trial court to grant relief pursuant to a nonexistent cause of action); see also Sirdevan v. Strand, 120 So.3d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), rev. denied, 147 So.3d 527 (Fla.2014) (table).

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 So. 3d 569, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14021, 2016 WL 4992435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-mccraney-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack