Slowinski v. Sweeney
Decision Date | 06 June 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 1D10–5342.,1D10–5342. |
Citation | 64 So.3d 128 |
Parties | John SLOWINSKI and Nancy Bradberry, Appellants,v.Patrick M. SWEENEY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Terrance A. Jones, Orange Park, for Appellants.Wesley H. Owens, Jacksonville, for Appellee.HAWKES, J.
This appeal concerns a paternity suit brought by Appellee Patrick M. Sweeney—the biological father—against Appellant John Slowinski—the legal father—concerning the parental and custodial rights over J.S. (the child). At the time the child was born, the mother was still married to the legal father. She has since died. In the order on appeal, the trial court granted the paternity petition and awarded legal rights and physical custody to the biological father. This was incorrect. Because the child was born to an intact marriage between the legal father and mother, the biological father was precluded from bringing the paternity suit and the trial court should not have considered it.
Florida law is very specific regarding who may bring paternity suits. The statutes governing paternity contain language indicating biological fathers may not challenge the paternity of children born to intact marriages. For example, section 742.011, Florida Statutes (2010), states paternity suits may be brought only “to determine the paternity of the child when paternity has not been established by law or otherwise.” Paternity is “otherwise” established when the child is born to an intact marriage and recognized by the husband as his own child. See G.F.C. v. S.G., 686 So.2d 1382, 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). In such circumstances, the husband is considered to be the child's “legal” father, regardless of whether he is the biological father. See Lander v. Smith, 906 So.2d 1130, 1131 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ( ). In addition, section 742.10, Florida Statutes (2010), states paternity proceedings should be brought only to determine the “paternity for children born out of wedlock.”
Reading these provisions together, they indicate a child born to an intact marriage cannot be the subject of a paternity proceeding brought by a biological father. This interpretation is supported by caselaw.
In G.F.C. v. S.G., 686 So.2d at 1383, the Fifth District addressed a situation where a man claiming to be the biological father of a child born to an intact marriage brought a petition contesting the child's paternity. The Fifth District found that although men have the right to sue for paternity under certain circumstances, chapter 742 “does not expand this right to a man such as G.F.C. who declares himself to be the father of a child born to an intact marriage.” Id. at 1385. The Fifth District also found the biological father lacked any right to sue for paternity under common law, as common law gave only the husband the right to challenge the paternity of a child born during the marriage. Id. at 1384.
The Second District reached the same conclusion in I.A. v. H.H., 710 So.2d 162, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In I.A., the legal father married the child's mother two months after the child's birth and treated the child as if it was his own. Id. at 165. Citing G.F.C., the Second District held that because the child was born to an intact marriage, the putative father had no cause of action to challenge the child's paternity. Id. at 164–65. It noted that although neither party had raised this argument during the proceedings below,
it is our duty to notice and correct jurisdictional defects or fundamental error even when they have not been identified by the parties. Such is the case where the trial court has granted relief that is not authorized by law, or pursuant to a cause of action that either does not exist or is not available to the plaintiff.
Id. at 165 (internal citations omitted). Numerous other cases have followed G.F.C. and I.A. by refusing to recognize a paternity suit by a biological father as a cognizable cause of action when the child is born to an intact marriage. See Williams–Raymond v. Jones, 954 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ( ); Bellomo v. Gagliano, 815 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ( ); see also S.D. v. A.G., 764 So.2d 807, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ( ).1
Here, it is undisputed that the child was born during the mother's marriage to the legal father. Accordingly, despite...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simmonds v. Perkins
...district courts on a question of law. We agree with Simmonds that Perkins expressly and directly conflicts with Slowinski v. Sweeney , 64 So.3d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), and Tijerino v. Estrella , 843 So.2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), on the question of whether a biological father is entitled to......
-
Roque-Gomez v. Tellez-Martinez
...a child's birth is considered to be the child's "legal" father, regardless of whether he is the biological father. Slowinski v. Sweeney, 64 So. 3d 128, 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Under Florida law, paternity is established in the husband as a matter of law when "the child is born to an intact......
-
Pena v. Diaz
...seek to establish paternity of a child born into an intact marriage when both the mother and her husband object. See Slowinski v. Sweeney, 64 So.3d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Bellomo v. Gagliano, 815 So.2d 721 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Johnson v. Ruby, 771 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); and G.F.C......
-
Slowinski v. Sweeney
...proceeding under chapter 742, Florida Statutes, because he was born to an intact marriage, not born out of wedlock. Slowinski v. Sweeney, 64 So.3d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finding that it was “fundamental error for the trial court to grant relief pursuant to this nonexistent cause of action......
-
Determination of parentage - unmarried parents
...the result reached by the Fourth District in Perkins and disapproved the First and Third District’s decisions in Slowinski v. Sweeney , 64 So.3d 128, 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) and Tijerino v. Estrella , 843 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Notably, after the Florida Supreme Court decided Si......