CHARLES L. LONG, APPELLANT,
v.
CYNTHIA G. LONG AND LEONARD C. DAVIS, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that Charles Long is the "legal father" of a child born during his marriage, directing instead that the judgment reflect he is the "father" under the presumption of legitimacy, absent any evidence of non-paternity.
The trial court must amend its judgment to remove the term "legal" and state that Charles Long is the "father" of the child, relying on the presumption of legitimacy rather than making an unsupported finding of legal paternity.
[1] When no evidence of paternity is presented in a dissolution action and the parties settle without contesting paternity, the child is entitled to the presumption of legiti…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 child is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of legitimacy ingrained in our law”
Court explaining the proper legal framework when no paternity evidence is presented
Cynthia Long filed for dissolution of marriage against Charles Long and a paternity action against Leonard Davis regarding a child born during the mar…
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 Presumption Of Legitimacy cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Acting Chief Judge.
This case began as a dissolution of marriage action which appellee Cynthia Long filed against appellant Charles Long. Cynthia then filed a paternity action against appellee Leonard Davis pertaining to a child born during the Longs’ marriage. Charles was permitted to intervene in the paternity action, and the two actions were consolidated. What could have been protracted litigation resolved itself into an uncontested dissolution of marriage with a marital settlement agreement and a dismissal of the paternity action. No evidence was offered as to the child’s paternity, and the marital settlement agreement states that one child was born of the marriage.
Notwithstanding, the trial court included in its final judgment of dissolution a finding that Charles Long “is the legal father of the parties’ minor child.” Charles appeals this finding and contends nothing in the record supports a finding that he is not the natural father of the child. We agree that the record is devoid of any evidence of paternity; therefore, we are unable to direct the trial court to make a specific finding that Charles is the natural father. Under these circumstances, the child is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of legitimacy ingrained in our law. See Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 16 So. 2d 163 (1944). Thus, we direct the trial court to amend the final judgment by striking the term “legal.” The judgment will thereafter read “... Charles L. Long is the father of the parties’ minor child....”
Reversed in part and remanded.
WHATLEY and GREEN, JJ., concur.