CREIGHTON L. KINZER, APPELLANT,
v.
BOBBIE JO BICKERSTAFF, ET AL., 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 reversed the trial court's order amending a dissolution judgment to establish paternity and child support obligations, holding that DNA testing must be ordered before a paternity presumption can be deemed overcome.
DNA testing must be ordered to determine paternity before a presumption of paternity can be overcome in a child support modification proceeding.
[1] DNA testing must be ordered to determine paternity before a presumption of paternity arising from a marriage can be deemed overcome in a child support modification action…
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“Upon the confession of error by the DOR that DNA testing should have been required, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with directions to order DNA testing.”
The court's explanation for reversal, noting the Department of Revenue's concession that DNA testing was necessary.
Kinzer and Bickerstaff obtained a simplified dissolution of marriage in which they falsely stated there were no children born or expected. Years later…
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
THOMPSON, J.
Creighton L. Kinzer ( Kinzer”) appeals an order amending the final judgment dissolving the marriage between him and Bobbie Jo Bickerstaff (“Bickerstaff’). Kinzer and Bickerstaff obtained a simplified dissolution of marriage and in their petition they alleged that there were no children born or expected from the marriage. Both knew this to be inaccurate. Years later, the Department of Revenue (“DOR”), on behalf of Bickerstaff, sought to amend the judgment to state that there was a child born of the marriage and that the judgment should be amended to state that there was a child and that Kinzer was obligated to provide child support. Kinzer opposed the petition and requested DNA testing to prove that he was not the father of the child. The DOR opposed the motion.
The trial court ruled that the presumption that Kinzer was the father had not been overcome and denied Kinzer’s motion to order DNA testing. The court entered an amended final judgment of dissolution providing that the child was a product of the marriage, that Kinzer was the father of the child, and that he was required to provide support.
The trial court ordered shared parental responsibility, although Kinzer had not asked for it and indeed testified that he would have nothing to do with the child. Upon the confession of error by the DOR that DNA testing should have been required, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with directions to order DNA testing. See Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1997); Gantt v. Gantt, 716 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA1998).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON, J., and SMITH, C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1997)
- Gantt v. Gantt, 716 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)