Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Meeker v. Silva
214 So. 3d 766
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child V.S. was born in Texas in 2006; Robert Silva signed an affidavit acknowledging paternity the next day and a Texas court later found Silva to be the father and entered child support orders, including a 2009 agreed modification.
- Mother Meeker and the child moved to Maine; Silva lives in Florida.
- Florida DOR registered the 2009 Texas support order in Florida under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.
- Silva moved in Florida circuit court for scientific paternity testing, claiming possible nonpaternity based on his investigation of Meeker’s conduct; no testimony was taken at the hearing.
- The trial court ordered Silva, Meeker, and the minor child to submit to genetic testing; DOR sought certiorari review in the Fifth DCA challenging that order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DOR) | Defendant's Argument (Silva) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Florida court may order genetic testing in a registered foreign child-support proceeding after paternity was previously established | DOR: No — prior adjudication of parentage precludes nonparentage defenses and testing in a UIFSA registration | Silva: He should be allowed testing because he doubts biological paternity and moved for testing under § 742.12 | Court: Denied — paternity already adjudicated; order departed from essential requirements of law |
| Whether § 742.12 (scientific testing statute) applies in this proceeding | DOR: § 742.12 applies only to proceedings to establish paternity, not to enforcement of an existing order | Silva: Invoked § 742.12 to obtain testing | Court: § 742.12 does not apply because this was not a paternity-establishment proceeding |
| Whether the trial court properly ordered testing as discovery without findings of controversy or good cause | DOR: No — discovery testing requires paternity to be 'in controversy' and a finding of good cause, neither shown | Silva: Implicitly sought testing as discovery to investigate parentage doubts | Court: Order invalid as discovery compulsion; no good-cause finding or evidentiary support was made |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (defines departure-from-essential-requirements-of-law standard for certiorari)
- State, Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Carnley v. Lynch, 53 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (discusses need for paternity to be in controversy and good cause for testing)
- State, Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Striggles v. Standifer, 990 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (genetic testing can cause irreparable harm that certiorari may remedy)
- State Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Sharif v. Brown, 980 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (same principle regarding intrusiveness of testing)
- Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. T.E.P. v. Price, 958 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (certiorari is proper because testing cannot be undone on appeal)
- State v. Bjorkland, 924 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (similar reasoning on irreparable harm from compelled testing)
- Fla. Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Corbitt v. Alletag, 156 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (no genetic-test order absent paternity-in-controversy and good cause)