Daniel v. Daniel
| Decision Date | 19 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 89363,89363 |
| Citation | 695 So.2d 1253 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly S353 Tara DANIEL, Petitioner, v. Michael S. DANIEL, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Carl T. Boake, St. Petersburg, for Petitioner.
Peter N. Meros of Meros, Smith & Olney, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Respondent.
We have for review the following question certified to be of great public importance:
IS THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY OVERCOME WHEN A MARRIED HUSBAND AND WIFE STIPULATE THAT THE CHILD'S FATHER IS NOT THE HUSBAND BUT DO NOT CHALLENGE THE CHILD'S LEGITIMACY, AND THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE REMAINS UNCHANGED?
Daniel v. Daniel, 681 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the question in the negative and approve the analysis and result in the district court's decision below.
On appeal to the Second District, the former husband in this case and respondent here, Michael Daniel, challenged that part of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding his former wife, Tara Daniel, child support for a daughter, Ciara Daniel, who is not biologically his, but who was born in March 1993, three months after the couple married. The parties separated after eleven months of marriage. At the time of their marriage, Michael Daniel knew his wife was pregnant with the child of another man.
In the marriage dissolution proceeding before the trial court, the parties stipulated that Michael Daniel was not the biological father of the child. Pursuant to our decision in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Privette, 617 So.2d 305 (Fla.1993), the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the child and made the biological father, Scott Staggers, a party to the proceedings. 1 In the final judgment of dissolution, the trial court determined that Michael Daniel had not contracted for the child's support and that equitable estoppel did not apply so as to compel him to pay child support. Consistent with the guardian ad litem's report, however, the trial court found that while both Michael Daniel and the biological father had the ability to pay child support, respondent was "better able" to provide such support and the "best interest" of the child was served by ordering respondent, as opposed to the biological father, to pay child support. 681 So.2d at 850.
The Second District, in a concise and well-reasoned opinion by Judge Whatley, reversed the support award on appeal, holding that: (1) a husband, like Michael Daniel, who is not the natural or adoptive parent of a child, and has not otherwise contracted for the child's care and support, has no duty to pay child support upon the dissolution of the marriage; and (2) even though the former husband in this case has no duty to pay child support, the child nevertheless remains "legitimate" because she was born during the parties' valid marriage. Id. at 851. We approve the district court's analysis of this issue and agree with its conclusion that paternity and legitimacy are related, but nevertheless separate and distinct concepts.
The district court properly found that the instant case is controlled by the well-settled rule of law in this state that "a person has no legal duty to provide support for a minor child who is neither his natural nor his adopted child and for whose care and support he has not contracted." Albert v. Albert, 415 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); see also Portuondo v. Portuondo, 570 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Swain v. Swain, 567 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Bostwick v. Bostwick, 346 So.2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Taylor v. Taylor, 279 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). While the courts must be ever vigilant to protect our children, we do not find the circumstances of this case justify a deviation from this established rule of law or present an exception to its application.
We further agree with the district court that the instant case is distinguishable from Privette. Unlike the circumstances before us here, our decision in Privette addressed a case of contested paternity involving blood tests, and its application is limited to those instances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmonds v. Perkins
...where the mother's husband seeks to maintain his status as the child's legal father, Privette , 617 So.2d at 309 ; cf. Daniel v. Daniel , 695 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 1997) (declining to apply the Privette test in a dissolution of marriage action where the husband raised the issue of paternit......
-
DEPT. OF REV. EX REL. PRESTON v. Cummings, No. 2D02-5333
...of vesting parental rights in putative natural father and removing parental rights from the legal father"); but see Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.1997) (distinguishing between paternity and legitimacy and stating that "legitimacy will not be affected by a determination of pate......
-
Department of Revenue v. Cummings, Case No. 2D02-5333 (FL 5/12/2004), Case No. 2D02-5333.
...of vesting parental rights in putative natural father and removing parental rights from the legal father"); but see Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 1997) (distinguishing between paternity and legitimacy and stating that "legitimacy will not be affected by a determination of pa......
-
Parker v. Parker
...the instant case presents a question which can be expected to recur with increasing frequency. Florida Paternity Law In Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997), the trial court had required the former husband to pay child support as part of the marital dissolution decree, despite the fa......
-
Determination of parentage - unmarried parents
...father is not the husband, but do not challenge the child’s legitimacy and the birth certificate remains unchanged. [ Daniel v. Daniel , 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1997)(holding that a child who was born during valid marriage remained legitimate, although moth-er’s husband was not father and had......
-
Distinguishing legitimacy from paternity.
...[of] ... lineal descendan[cy]"[3] as well as a "presumption of legitimacy."[4] Before the recent opinion of Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1997), a child born during a marriage was presumed to be legitimate and the Florida Supreme Court had declared this was "one of the strongest r......
-
The presumptions of Privette: have they perished with the coming of Daniel and disestablishment of paternity?
...of that marriage, and the legal rights of those involved. The Daniel Decision In 1997, the Florida Supreme Court in Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1997), announced a distinction between paternity (or natural lineage) and legitimacy. Daniel holds that a person has no legal duty to p......