STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, AND CARRIE DOTY, PETITIONERS,
v.
JEFFREY OPEL, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an order requiring HLA testing in a paternity case, holding that an Indiana paternity judgment establishing the respondent as the father was entitled to full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution and could not be relitigated through HLA testing in a subsequent URESA enforcement proceeding.
The court held that the Indiana paternity judgment was entitled to full faith and credit and could not be relitigated through HLA testing. The judgment was facially valid, Opel was properly served as an Indiana resident and made a personal court appearance, and his belated challenges to paternity in the URESA proceeding were precluded.
[1] A prior judicial determination of paternity is entitled to full faith and credit in subsequent proceedings, including those initiated under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforce…
[2] A court should not attempt to determine the validity of a foreign decree unless its invalidity appears on the face of the record.
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“The better solution would have been a continuance so that the petitioner might ascertain and demonstrate the full nature of the New York proceedings.”
Establishes the principle that courts should continue cases to verify the existence and effect of prior foreign paternity judgments before proceeding with new proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1985, an Indiana court declared Jeffrey Opel to be the father of a child born to Carrie Doty and set child support at $40 per week. Opel did not ap…
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 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order granting respondent Jeffrey Opel’s request for a Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) test. We grant the petition.
In 1985 an Indiana court declared that Opel was the father of a child born to petitioner Carrie Doty, and set child support at $40.00 per week. Opel, who did not appear at any dispositive Indiana hearings and who now resides in Florida, has never paid anything. Upon service of Ms. Doty’s URESA petition, Opel demanded an HLA test. He contended that he “has been sterile for his entire life,” and also that the Indiana court never properly served him in the original paternity action.
Petitioners correctly assert that the Indiana judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. People of the State of Arkansas on Behalf of Smith v. Smith, 398 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Schaffer v. Overby, 613 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In Smith the former husband denied paternity for the first time when answering a URESA petition initiated in Arkansas. The Florida court made a finding he was not the father and so had no duty of support, despite suggestions that a New York court had held otherwise. In reversing, this court stated that “[t]he better solution would have been a continuance” so that the petitioner might ascertain and demonstrate “the full nature of the New York proceedings.” 398 So. 2d at 513-4. Should those be found to have determined paternity, they would be entitled to full faith and credit.
Of no avail to Opel in this case is Hodge v. Maith, 435 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Hodge differs from the present case and Smith in that there was no judicial determination of paternity prior to the URESA hearing. When Hodge denied paternity, a continuance was ordered to allow a Pennsylvania court to decide the matter. After Hodge failed to appear in that state, the Pennsylvania court entered a default judgment. The Florida court determined that this judgment was entitled to full faith and credit. On appeal the court found defective service of the Pennsylvania complaint, and thus that the judgment was invalid and unenforceable.
Hodge suggests that a due process attack might also be made on a paternity judgment entered in advance of URESA proceedings. However, in Garland v. Lewis, 547 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), this court stated, “Generally a Florida court should not attempt to determine the validity of a foreign decree unless something appears on the face of the record which discloses its invalidity.” The record in the present case refutes any suggestion that the Indiana judgment is facially invalid. At the time the action was commenced Opel was a resident of Indiana, and thus does not suffer the same “long-arm” problems as the putative father in Hodge. Affidavits and other evidence indicate he was served with the petition and made at least one personal appearance in court before deciding, for whatever reason, to risk default judgment.
The petition for writ of certiorari is hereby granted, the order requiring the parties to submit to HLA testing is quashed, and this case is remanded to circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Heidler, 629 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…Rehabilitative Services seeks certiorari review of an order which permits respondent Donald Hei-dler to obtain an Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) test. We grant the petition on the authority of State, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Opel, 620 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). As in Opel, the request for HLA testing arose when Heidler was summoned to court to answer a URESA petition. A judicial determination of paternity, albeit by default, has already been made in the initiating state (Michigan). Ac…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Myrick, 706 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…of paternity is res judicata and a subsequent judge has no jurisdiction to order that the issue be relitigated. Department of Revenue v. Goulbourne, 648 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Opel, 620 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Miller v. Cowart, 546 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In DeVaughn v. Department of Revenue, 691 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 700 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1997), the Fourth District held that the trial court did not have jurisdic…
-
State v. Simms, 705 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…raised them at the paternity determination hearing. Because that issue ■ had been previously resolved, absent fraud on the court, the paternity adjudication was res judicata. See also State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Opel, 620 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Chambers, 472 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Johnson v. Johnson, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The same reasoning applies here. In setting aside the final order determinin…
Authorities Cited
- Hodge v. Maith, 435 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- The People OF the State OF Ark. v. Smith, 398 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Garland v. Lewis, 547 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Paulette Jean Schaffer & the State of Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. The Honorable J. Jefferson Overby of the Sixteenth Jud. Cir., 613 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)