WILLIE P. ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF MAROLYN D. EVANS, 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.
The court affirmed a final judgment of paternity against Robinson, holding that Privette protections requiring appointment of a guardian ad litem do not apply when the child's legal father has already been judicially determined not to be the biological father through blood tests and is no longer claiming paternity.
The trial court did not err in denying the motions. Privette protections requiring a guardian ad litem and best-interest analysis apply only when a child's legitimacy status or a legal father's parental rights face threat of being impugned. Those protections do not apply when the legal father has already been judicially determined not to be the biological father and owes no duty of support.
[1] A guardian ad litem is not required in a paternity action when the child is not facing a threat to legitimacy or the legal father is not facing a threat to parental right…
[2] A court is not mandated to appoint a guardian ad litem or determine if paternity is in the child's best interest when the legal father has already been determined not to…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Once children are bom legitimate, they have a right to maintain that status both factually and legally if doing so is in their best interests. The child's legally recognized father likewise has an unmistakable interest in maintaining the relationship with his child unimpugned.”
Establishes the foundational principle from Privette regarding protection of legitimate status and legal father's parental rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson seeks review of a final paternity judgment. The child's mother was previously married to another man (the legal father). In the dissolution o…
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 Guardian Ad Litem cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a final judgment of paternity. He asserts that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the child and for a determination of whether a finding of paternity would be in the best interest of the child. According to appellant, such action was mandated by Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Privette, 617 So. 2d 305 (Fla.1993). We disagree, and affirm.
In Privette, the court said that, “[o]nce children are bom legitimate, they have a right to maintain that status both factually and legally if doing so is in their best inter-ests_ The child’s legally recognized father likewise has an unmistakable interest in maintaining the relationship with his child unimpugned_” Id. at 307 (citations omitted).
Accordingly, the court held that, before the legitimacy of a child and, thus, the parental rights of the “legal father” could be “impugned” (id.), “a clear and compelling reason” for doing so, “based primarily on the child’s best interests,” must be established. Id. at 309. To assure that the rights of the child and the “legal father” are protected in such cases, a guardian ad litem must be appointed to represent the child, and the “legal father” must be given notice and afforded an opportunity to appear and be heard. Id. at 308.
It is apparent that the decision in Privette was motivated by the perceived need to protect the interests of two groups — children who face the threat of “being declared illegitimate” (id. at 309), and “legal fathers” who face the threat of losing parental rights.
However, no such concern is implicated in this case. There is no dispute about the fact that a final judgment dissolving the marriage of the child’s mother and his “legal father” was entered in December 1992, well before this action was commenced. There is, likewise, no dispute about the fact that, at the request of the child’s “legal father” in the dissolution action, blood tests were performed establishing that he is not the child’s biological father. As a result, the final judgment of dissolution holds that the child’s “legal father” is not his “father,” and owes no duty of support to the child. Given these undisputed facts, we can discern no good reason why appellant should be permitted to use Privette as a shield, in an attempt to thwart a determination that he is the biological father of the child and, therefore, owes a duty of support to the child.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. James (Willie) Cummings, 871 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…plored in these paternity suits without the joinder of the legal fathers. These complaints do not reveal any facts that would conclusively establish that the legal fathers do not owe a duty of support. See, e.g., Robinson v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 661 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding Privette does not shield putative biological father from paternity action when mother and legal father were previously divorced and their final judgment acknowledged husband was not legal father and owed no duty of suppo…
-
Daniel v. Daniel, 681 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…now when to conduct a Pri-vette hearing. Privette centered on litigation brought by HRS seeking to compel a putative father to pay child support. Privette was a case of contested paternity involving blood tests. In Robinson v. Department of Revenue, 661 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the First District found the scope of Privette limited to eases involving (a) children who face the threat of being declared illegitimate and (b) “legal fathers” who face the threat of losing parental rights.2 We concur with Rob…
-
State v. Bennett L. Turner, 671 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…cating its prior paternity and support order on the basis of HRS v. Privette, 617 So. 2d 305 (Fla.1993). We reverse and remand. After the trial court entered its order below, this court rendered its decision in Robinson v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 661 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), applying and distinguishing Privette in a ease that is factually similar to the instant case. We, therefore, remand for the trial court’s reconsideration in light of Robinson, supra, and with the blood test results, which were n…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Privette, 617 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1993)