Mays v. Twigg, 88-03549
| Decision Date | 22 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-03549,88-03549 |
| Citation | 543 So.2d 241,14 Fla. L. Weekly 767 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 767 Robert MAYS and Kimberly Michelle Mays, a minor, Petitioners. v. Regina I. TWIGG and Ernest L. Twigg, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Arthur D. Ginsburg, of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., Sarasota, for petitioners.
John T. Blakely, of Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A., Clearwater, and William A. Post, Seminole, for respondents.
Robert and Kimberly Mays petition this court for a writ of certiorari to review a non-final order of the circuit court entered in the course of an ongoing suit for declaratory relief. We grant the petition.
The facts surrounding this case are exceptionally delicate and unique. The respondents, Ernest and Regina Twigg, have alleged that some ten years ago staff personnel at Hardee Memorial Hospital, Wauchula, switched their healthy newborn daughter with one born on approximately the same date to Robert Mays' late wife, Barbara, and that both couples went on to raise children not actually their own natural offspring. The child raised by the Twiggs, Arlena Beatrice, later died from a congenital heart condition. Shortly before Arlena's death the Twiggs learned, based on the child's blood type, that neither of them could have been her biological parent. Kimberly Mays was the only other white female in occupancy at Hardee Memorial Hospital at the time of Arlena's birth.
Respondents began the underlying litigation by filing a "Petition for Order Compelling Blood Test to Confirm Paternity of Female Child," later substituting a complaint for declaratory relief. The amended complaint demands a declaration that Kimberly Mays is the Twiggs' natural biological child. Petitioners have countered with a number of motions seeking protection from various discovery requests, dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a more definite statement of the relief sought, and based on this court's holding in Van Nostrand v. Olivieri, 427 So.2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), a bifurcated trial of the issues. With the exception of a provision limiting discovery of the medical records of Barbara Mays the trial court's order denies all relief sought by petitioners at this time.
The trial court concluded that "the holding of Van Nostrand v. Olivieri ... regarding standing is not applicable in this case." Although the facts of Van Nostrand differ totally from the case at bar, they are relevant to the result arrived at both then and now. Van Nostrand and his wife had obtained a divorce, with the wife receiving custody of the couple's minor child and Van Nostrand retaining visitation privileges. The wife then married Olivieri, and they later sought a judicial declaration that he, not Van Nostrand, was really the child's father, thus terminating Van Nostrand's visitation rights. Ordinarily the judgment of dissolution might have served as res judicata as to the paternity of the child, foreclosing an action such as the Olivieris', but this defense could not be used against Olivieri because he was not a party to the previous action. When Van Nostrand was ordered to submit to blood testing he petitioned for certiorari. We quashed the order requiring the blood test because Olivieri had not demonstrated his standing to bring the suit. In so doing, we said:
Thus, it cannot be said as a matter of law that Olivieri is precluded from seeking an adjudication that he is Christie's father. As a condition of obtaining such an adjudication, he must prove standing by showing "that he has manifested a substantial concern for the welfare of his illegitimate child". [citation omitted.] There has not yet been a determination that he has the requisite standing.
Ordinarily, the fact that a party may not be able to sustain his complaint does not serve to prevent him from obtaining full discovery on matters relevant to the issues in the case. See Deltona Corp. v. Bailey, 336 So.2d 1163 (Fla.1976). However, we believe this case is exceptional because of the sensitive nature of the subject matter and the irreparable harm which could occur if Olivieri should fail to prove standing.
We hold that in cases such as this, before a putative father may obtain discovery relating to the paternity of the child, he must first prove the requisite standing to go forward with the suit. Presumably, this will require a bifurcated proceeding in which the issue of standing is first resolved.
Van Nostrand, 427 So.2d at 377. The Twiggs successfully argued that Van Nostrand could not apply because it was impossible to show substantial concern for the welfare of a child unknown to them. However, the Twiggs and the trial judge have misconstrued the thrust of Van Nostrand. It is not limited to defining procedure in unique paternity actions, but is rather a pronouncement of the need to protect adults and children alike from unwarranted intrusions into their privacy. Admittedly, natural parents have certain presumptive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. MLS, 2D98-3902.
...several possible explanations: First, the biological child of this couple was switched at birth in the hospital. Cf. Mays v. Twigg, 543 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (parentage dispute concerning switched baby). Second, R.A.E. was not telling the truth and that she had had a relationship wit......
-
Lorence v. Goeller, 2005 Ohio 2678 (OH 6/1/2005)
...and the natural parents. Id., citing Twigg v. Mays (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1993), No. 88-4489-CA-01, WL 339624, at *2; see also Mays v. Twigg (Fla. Dist. App. 1989), 543 So.2d 241. In Georgia, the court adopted the nurture perspective and refused to remove the child from the only mother he ever knew......
-
Benac v. Bree, s. 91-00892
...wherein the putative father is motivated, at least in part, by a wish to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood. 2 Cf. Mays v. Twigg, 543 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Van Nostrand v. Olivieri, 427 So.2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA The extent of such standing is another matter. Benac contends that B......
-
Genes, parents, and assisted reproductive technologies: arts, mistakes, sex, race, & law.
...Margaret Jane Radin, Market-Inalienability, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1849 (1987). (61.) Pope v. Moore, 403 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. 1991); Mays v. Twigg, 543 So. 2d 241, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989). Ilana Hurwitz notes another recent case of switched babies in her article, Collaborative Reproduction: Findin......
-
Distinguishing legitimacy from paternity.
...for biological certainty should be denied if the blood test will interfere with that relationship. The celebrated case of Mays v. Twigg, 543 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), in which two girls were switched at birth and the court left teenaged Kimberly Mays in the custody of the man who raise......