Neuman v. Harper, No. 5D11–3144.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: COHEN
• Citation: 106 So.3d 974
• Parties: Rachell NEUMAN, Appellant, v. James HARPER, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 5D11–3144.
• Decision Date: 08 February 2013

106 So.3d 974

Rachell NEUMAN, Appellant,
v.
James HARPER, Appellee.

No. 5D11–3144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.

Feb. 8, 2013.

[106 So.3d 975]

Rachell Neuman, Bunnell, pro se.

Tammy L. Jaques, DeLand, for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

Rachell Neuman appeals from a final judgment establishing James Harper's paternity of their minor child, P.N., ordering shared parental responsibility, and awarding Harper majority time-sharing in Mississippi. Because there was competent substantial evidence to support the final judgment, we affirm.

Virtually every fact adduced at trial was controverted. For instance, the parties could not agree on when they began their intimate relationship and when it ended. Neither date is of particular import, but rather is reflective of the disputed nature of the testimony. When faced with such conflicting evidence, the trial court made a determination as to credibility, and that determination was not flattering to Neuman.

Neuman's past behavior no doubt impacted her credibility. Although they were no longer a couple, Harper allowed Neuman to continue living in his home during the pregnancy, while he was out of state performing cleanup services following Hurricane Katrina. On three occasions Neuman changed the locks, effectively excluding Harper from his own residence. Additionally, Neuman filed criminal charges and a domestic violence injunction against Harper, both of which were ultimately dismissed. As a result of Neuman's ex parte application for the domestic violence injunction, however, Harper was unable to attend the birth of his child.

Worse still were Neuman's efforts to conceal P.N.'s paternity. Neuman did not acknowledge Harper as the child's father on the birth certificate, and for the first eighteen months of the child's life, refused Harper any contact with P.N. Harper filed this paternity action in September 2007. Neuman delayed DNA testing, but finally complied with court-ordered testing. However, instead of taking P.N. to be tested, she took a different child—apparently her sister's—who was born close in time to P.N. Upon receiving the negative test results, Harper, still convinced he was the child's father, conducted his own investigation. Through social media, he viewed photographs of P.N. and discovered the photographs were not those of the child Neuman presented for DNA testing.

Harper filed a motion for a second DNA test which the trial court granted. For this test, Neuman brought two children whose faces were obscured by hoods. At first, Neuman tried to prevent...