DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES C. MOORE, 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 this paternity case, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a judicial hearing officer's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove paternity by a preponderance of the evidence. The court affirmed, holding that paternity evaluation reports were properly excluded because they lacked proper authentication and predicate for admission, and the appellant failed to establish that advance notice of evidentiary objections was required.
The court held that the hearing officer did not abuse discretion in excluding the paternity evaluation reports because they were not properly authenticated and no proper predicate was laid for their admission. The court also held that advance notice of intent to adhere to the rules of evidence is not required, and the appellant cited no authority supporting such a requirement.
[1] Paternity test results are inadmissible as evidence unless properly authenticated and a proper predicate has been laid.
[2] A party is not required to provide advance notice of an intent to object to the admissibility of evidence based on the rules of evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although [paternity] test results may be admitted into evidence pursuant to section 742.12, the records reflecting those results must be properly authenticated and a proper predicate must be laid. Haphazard admission of paternity reports such as the ones in this case does a disservice to the parties, the children, and the legal process.”
Establishes the legal requirement for proper authentication and predicate before admitting paternity test results into evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a paternity suit, the child's mother testified that James C. Moore was the father, while Moore denied paternity. Both witnesses were found equally …
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 Authentication Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
The testimony presented in this paternity suit amounted to an accusation by the child’s mother and a denial by the accused defendant, James C. Moore. The judicial hearing officer found that both were equally credible and that, therefore, the plaintiff had failed to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.
While paternity evaluation reports that may have tipped the scales in favor of the plaintiff were filed in the record below, defendant’s counsel successfully objected to their admission into evidence because no predicate had been laid for their admission. Such test results cannot simply be handed to the trier of fact as evidence without proper authentication and the proper predicate. Seiler v. Stringham, 567 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Ferguson v. Williams, 566 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dutilly v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 450 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In Ferguson, the court stated:
Although [paternity] test results may be admitted into evidence pursuant to section 742.12, the records reflecting those results must be properly authenticated and a proper predicate must be laid. Haphazard admission of paternity reports such as the ones in this case does a disservice to the parties, the children, and the legal process.
Ferguson, 566 So. 2d at 11.
Appellant complains that the hearing officer’s refusal to admit the evaluation reports was unfair because the defendant had failed to object to the admissibility of the written test results in advance of trial, and particularly because one of the two tests had been requested by the defendant. Appellant cites no authority for requiring advance notice of the intent to adhere to the rules of evidence, and we decline to establish one. We see no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal to grant rehearing. In the instant case, there were no extenuating circumstances such as were found in Joyner v. Hair, 485 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), or Locklear v. Sampson, 478 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion.
HARRIS, J., dissents with opinion.
[*15] COBB, Judge,
concurring specially.
Based upon the record before us and the rules of evidence, I reluctantly concur with the affirmance of the trial court. I believe it should be noted, however, that a prospective monetary remedy for the mother, for future child support, now may lie in an action against the State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the trial attorney, whose selection was an operational function of the Department. See Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Whaley, 574 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1991).
HARRIS, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Here two tests, an HLA tissue-typing test ordered by the court and a DNA testing approved by the court on appellee’s request, both showed in excess of a 99% probability that the appel-lee, the mother’s father, was also the child’s father. I agree that a proper evidentiary predicate was not established in this case for the introduction of the test results into evidence as required by Dutilly v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Serv., 450 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); however, both tests had been filed with the court for some time before the trial and available to both parties, and no pretrial objections to the test results based on their unreliability had been made. Clearly trial counsel erred in assuming that there would be no objection to the test results and in failing to subpoena the necessary parties to establish the predicate. But, when the mother cannot, even by agreement, contract away the child’s right to support, an error by trial counsel, unless the defendant is somehow prejudiced, should not be permitted to do so. The court abused its discretion, in my opinion, in denying a rehearing. Appellee would still have the opportunity to challenge the reliability of the testing procedure (hence no prejudice) and the rights of the child could be determined based on all relevant evidence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sexton v. State, 997 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2008)…ind that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling this evidence relevant. Sexton, 697 So. 2d at 837. Even if counsel should have objected to the lack of foundation for Genetin’s knowledge, see Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Moore, 603 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (holding that paternity tests are not admissible where unauthenticated and a predicate has not been laid), Pixie also testified that Sexton was the father of two of her children. Therefore, we conclude that no prejudice can b…
-
Rollins v. Rollins, 336 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…e. Her testimony did not address whether sexual violence occurred. 6 conflicting testimony and no other evidence bearing on the fact is asserted, the trial court must hold against the person on whom the burden of proof rests); Dep’t of HRS v. Moore, 603 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (affirming trial court’s finding that plaintiff failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence when the only evidence before the court was equally credible yet conflicting testimony); Friedman v. U.S. Home Corp.,…
-
Dionne A. Morris v. Crawford, 718 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…summary judgment in light of the defendant’s sworn denial of paternity, [*357] even though the equivocal nature of that denial in the instant case would raise a close question. Id.; see also Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Moore, 603 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (citing Seiler v. Stringham, 567 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)) (paternity evaluation reports were not admissible in paternity suit where no predicate had been laid for admission of the reports. “Such test results cannot si…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Whaley, 574 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1991)
- Dutilly v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 450 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Locklear v. Sampson, 478 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Romer Ferguson v. Williams, 566 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Arme Joyner v. Coley Hair, 485 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Carteret Sav. Bank v. Vaughn Durham, 567 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Jere Seiler v. Pamela Stringham & the Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 567 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)