ROBERT L. RYMER, APPELLANT,
v.
TERESA YVONNE RYMER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dissolution action, the trial court refused to order an HLA blood test to determine paternity of a two-month-old child born during the marriage, citing that "the child should have a father." The appellate court reversed, holding that the husband had good cause and the matter was in controversy, and that the court abused its discretion in refusing the test, though the blood test results would not be conclusively binding on the trier of fact.
The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the blood test request. The husband, as the presumptive father, had the right to contest paternity where both parties were willing to submit to testing and the paternity was genuinely in question. The case was reversed and remanded for the blood test to be obtained.
[1] A party seeking a blood test must demonstrate that the matter is "in controversy" and that there is "good cause."
[2] When a child is born in wedlock, the husband has a recognized right to contest paternal parentage.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order to require that a party undergo a blood test, it must be shown that the matter is "in controversy" and that there is "good cause."”
Establishes the legal standard for ordering blood tests under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Rymer sought dissolution of marriage and challenged child support obligations for a child born during the marriage when the child was two month…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Paternity cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellant/husband, Robert L. Rymer, appeals the award of monthly child support payments in the dissolution action below. Rymer contends that the lower court erred when it refused to order an HLA blood test of the minor child (age two months), who was conceived and born during the marriage.
In order to require that a party undergo a blood test, it must be shown that the matter is “in controversy” and that there is “good cause.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.360(a). Further, it has been held that when a child is born in wedlock, the husband of the child’s mother has a recognized right to contest the paternal parentage. Knauer v. Barnett, 360 So. 2d 399 (Fla.1978); Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 16 So. 2d 163 (1944).
In the present case, although the appel-lee wife testified that Rymer was the father, Rymer submitted a letter, without objection, in which the wife admitted that during the time of conception she had sexual intercourse with two other men besides her husband. In addition to this admission, the wife did not object to the blood test, and, in fact, agreed to a time for it. It is clear from the record that neither party was certain as to the parentage, but the putative father desired the test and the mother was also willing to have it done. Moreover, the husband, as the child’s presumptive father, had every right to have the child tested without any court order, but could not do so in this particular case because the mother had the child with her out of state up until the final hearing.
The record indicates the trial judge refused to allow the requested blood test on the basis that “the child should have a father.” While that is true as a matter of social policy, the child does not have the right to a father based on immediate availability to court order rather than on the facts.
Confronted with this factual scenario, we must conclude that the lower court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the husband’s request. Thus, the order awarding child support is reversed and this case is remanded for a new hearing on the issue of child support and for a blood test to be obtained. By this holding, we do not imply that the result of such a test is conclusively binding on the trier of fact. See Strickland v. Strickland, 456 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Dutilly v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 450 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The probability indicated by the test is simply a factor to be weighed and evaluated at trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873 (Fla. 1944)
- Knauer v. Barnett, 360 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1978)
- Dutilly v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 450 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Strickland v. Strickland, 456 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)