P.G. v. E.W.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18953
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- P.G. seeks disestablishment of paternity for A.G. after a DNA test shows zero percent likelihood he is the biological father.
- He had previously signed A.G.’s birth certificate and was the child’s primary residential parent following dissolution of their marriage.
- The final dissolution judgment allocated shared medical and childcare expenses between the Former Husband and Former Wife.
- The Former Wife testified she believed at A.G.’s birth that P.G. was the father, and prior to birth there was no testing.
- The trial court denied relief, concluding P.G. did not qualify under §742.18 and that he was estopped; the appellate court reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §742.18 applies to a non‑support father | P.G. qualifies as a 'male ordered to pay child support' due to expense sharing and primary custody. | Was not ordered to pay child support, so §742.18 is inapplicable. | §742.18 applies; relief granted. |
| Whether the DNA results constitute newly discovered evidence under §742.18 | DNA showing non-paternity constitutes newly discovered evidence under §742.18(2). | Trial court properly found it not newly discovered because it related to known suspicions. | DNA results meet the newly discovered evidence requirement. |
| Whether §742.18(3)’s conduct prohibition applies after new evidence | Learning after DNA results does not trigger estoppel or conduct bars. | After learning non-paternity, the conduct listed in §742.18(3) could bar relief. | Subsection (3) does not apply here; relief should be granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooks v. Quaintance, 71 So.3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (conflicts with requiring newly discovered evidence when DNA shows non-paternity)
- Sacks v. Sacks, 267 So.2d 73 (Fla.1972) (equitable estoppel in paternity context)
- Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Privette, 617 So.2d 305 (Fla.1993) (presumption of legitimacy; best interests of the child)
- In re M.L.S. (Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. R.A.E.), 756 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (best interests and paternity considerations in juvenile context)
- Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So.2d 1086 (Fla.2006) (statutory interpretation of paternity determinations)