ROGER PAUL HEBNER, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHELLE ANN BARRY, 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.
A Florida appellate court granted a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court's order requiring paternity testing where the legal father (Martin Barry) was presumed to be the biological father. The court held that the trial judge failed to make required findings of fact regarding whether testing was in the child's best interests before ordering the test.
The trial court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering paternity testing without making required findings of fact regarding whether the test was in the child's best interests under the standards set forth in Privette and Daniel.
[1] A trial court must make findings of fact regarding a child's best interests before ordering scientific paternity testing when a legal father exists.
[2] A presumption of paternity in favor of the legal father can be overcome only upon a showing of clear and compelling reasons that the child's best interests would be serve…
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“Under Privette, and Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997), a determination of whether there is a clear and compelling reason why the child's best interests would be served by overcoming the presumption that the legal father is the father is required.”
Establishes the legal standard that must be applied before paternity testing can be ordered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichelle Ann Barry filed a pro se paternity petition against Roger Paul Hebner, alleging he was her son's biological father. The child's legal father …
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 Paternity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roger Paul Hebner, the putative father in this paternity action, petitions this court for writ of certiorari asserting that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering him to submit to scientific paternity testing.
The child’s mother, Michelle Ann Barry, filed a pro se petition to establish paternity alleging that Hebner was her son’s biological father. During the proceedings, the trial court determined that, because the woman was married to Martin Barry (the legal father) when the child was conceived, the case was “governed by the holding of Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Privette, 617 So. 2d 305 (Fla.1993).”
In accordance with the dictates of Pri-vette, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the minor’s interests.
After the guardian filed her report and recommendations, a hearing was held. There the court, noting the absence of the legal father, heard testimony from the mother that the legal father loves the child, but cannot afford to pay child support.1 Along the same lines, the guardian’s report indicated that the legal father had a loving relationship with the child, which he intended to maintain, irrespective of the outcome of the case. In her report, the guardian concluded that the blood test was not in the minor’s best interests.
Without addressing the evidence presented or offering any findings of fact concerning the minor’s best interest, the trial court ordered Hebner to submit to the blood test.
Under Privette, and Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1997), a determination of whether there is a clear and compelling reason why the child’s best interests would be served by overcoming the presumption that the legal father is the father is required. See also Fernandez v. McKenney, 776 So. 2d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(citing Daniel). In failing to make these required findings of fact as to wheth er the paternity test is in the best interest of the child, the court departed from the essential requirements of the law. See R.S.R. v. A.K., 801 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(citing Barker v. Barker, 785 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order entered below.
STONE, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . The limited record before this court is silent as to whether the legal father had notice of the hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Privette, 617 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1993)
- Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1997)
- Fernandez v. McKENNEY, 776 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- R.S.R. v. A.K., 801 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Barker v. Barker, 785 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)