Cole D. Fahey v. Melissa Kay Fahey
213 So. 3d 999
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Cole and Melissa Fahey married in Feb. 2010; child T.C.F. born Sept. 2010. They separated in June 2011 and Melissa moved to Georgia with the child.
- Genetic testing in Georgia revealed John Pearce was the child's biological father; Cole and Melissa stipulated in the Florida divorce that Cole was not the biological father and that Cole would have "no parental rights or responsibilities." Final judgment of dissolution entered Mar. 13, 2012.
- Melissa later moved back to Florida; she and Cole remarried Dec. 31, 2012. Pearce filed a legitimation and custody petition in Georgia; Cole attempted to intervene and to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but was unsuccessful.
- Georgia trial and appellate courts adjudicated Pearce the legitimate father and awarded him primary custody; the Georgia appellate court relied on the Florida dissolution stipulation in its analysis.
- Cole filed a Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(4) motion in Santa Rosa County to void Paragraph 4 of the divorce judgment, arguing the stipulation effectively terminated his parental rights without using chapter 39 protections; the magistrate recommended dismissal with prejudice, the trial court adopted the report, and Cole appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Fahey's Argument | Melissa / Trial Court / Magistrate Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties' stipulation in the Florida dissolution terminated Cole's parental rights without compliance with ch. 39 | The stipulation effectively terminated parental rights and is void because it bypassed chapter 39 safeguards | The stipulation was a non-paternity determination, not a termination of parental rights; parental rights can be terminated only by adoption or ch. 39 | Held for Melissa: stipulation was non-paternity, not a termination; no basis to void the judgment |
| Whether collateral attack on Georgia legitimation judgment is barred | Cole contended Georgia judgment wrongfully treated him as not legal father and sought relief in Florida | Georgia courts adjudicated issues and Cole litigated jurisdiction there; res judicata/full faith and credit apply | Held for Melissa: res judicata/full faith and credit preclude collateral attack in Florida |
| Whether magistrate's factual findings were clearly erroneous | Cole argued magistrate misconstrued the judgment and law | Magistrate correctly interpreted stipulation as non-paternity and applied controlling Florida law | Held: findings not clearly erroneous; trial court didn't abuse discretion |
| Whether Florida law permits parties to stipulate paternity status in dissolution | Cole argued such stipulations improperly affected legitimacy/legal status | Parties may stipulate paternity; termination requires ch. 39/adoption; paternity and legitimacy are distinct | Held: stipulation valid as to paternity status; legitimacy unaffected; stipulation enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Boykin, 843 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (standard of review for magistrate reports)
- Brown v. Brown, 149 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (trial court adoption of magistrate report reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Casbar v. Dicanio, 666 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (agreements purporting to terminate parental rights void as public policy)
- Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1997) (distinguishing paternity determinations from legitimacy and addressing stipulations of non-paternity)
- Nevitt v. Bonomo, 53 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (paternity findings based on party agreements/stipulations)
- L.S.H. v. P.L.H., 739 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stipulation of non-paternity is valid though other rights, like child support waivers, may not bind the court)
- Atwell v. Atwell, 730 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (full faith and credit/res judicata effects of out-of-state judgments)
- Kelley v. Kelley, 147 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (collateral attacks on judgments are barred when parties had their day in court)