WILLIAM MALCOLM FABRE, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHANIE M. FABRE AND KEVIN MICHAEL O'KEEFE, 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 dismissal of paternity petition because the biological father was not bound by res judicata from the mother's divorce judgment, and remanded to allow amendment to establish standing.
A biological father's paternity petition cannot be dismissed as res judicata based on a divorce judgment to which he was not a party, and he must be permitted to amend to establish standing under a best-interests-of-the-child analysis.
[1] A biological father's petition to establish paternity cannot be dismissed as res judicata based on a divorce judgment to which he was not a party.
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 intelligenceAppellant and Stephanie M. Fabre conceived a child while she was married to but separated from Kevin O'Keefe. Ms. Fabre, who has primary residential r…
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 Petition To Determine Paternity cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the dismissal of his petition to establish paternity of his biological child. The petition alleged that Appellant and Stephanie M. Fabre conceived the child while Ms. Fabre was married to, but separated from, Kevin O’Keefe. Appellant is apparently now married to and living with Ms. Fabre, who has primary residential responsibility for the child pursuant to a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Mr. O’Keefe. Ms. Fabre agrees with and consented to the petition to establish paternity, but Mr. O’Keefe objected and moved to dismiss the petition. The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that the final judgment dissolving the marriage of Ms. Fabre and Mr. O’Keefe established that Mr. O’Keefe was the father and was res judicata. This was error because Appellant was not a party to that action. Van Nostrand v. Olivieri, 427 So.2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Mr. O’Keefe nevertheless argues that we should affirm because Appellant did not make sufficient allegations to establish standing under a best-interests-of-the-child analysis. We decline to affirm on this basis. Appellant attempted to amend his petition to allege standing but the petition was dismissed before the amendment was considered. Appellant should be permitted to amend the petition to assert standing. See G.F.C. v. S.G., 686 So.2d 1382, 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- G.F.C. v. S.G. and D.G., 686 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Van Nostrand v. Nunzio J. Olivieri and Carol A. Olivieri, 427 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)