DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
v.
D.A., FATHER OF D.A., A CHILD AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM
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 trial court order requiring DCF to pay for DNA testing of a putative father in a dependency matter departs from the essential requirements of law when no party has raised a paternity claim and the biological mother's husband is presumed to be the legal father.
[1] A trial court lacks authority under separation of powers principles to order a governmental agency to pay for paternity testing services that benefit a private party, as…
[2] DNA testing of a putative father in a dependency proceeding cannot be ordered absent evidence that a party has put the issue of paternity into controversy, and good cause…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“an order of a trial court compelling a governmental department or agency to pay for a service or to incur another expense to the benefit of a private party 'interferes with both legislative discretion in determining the funds required of an agency and executive discretion in spending those appropriated funds, in derogation of the doctrine of separation of powers.'”
Court's reasoning regarding trial court's lack of authority to order DCF to pay for paternity testing
D.A., a putative father, requested DNA testing at a dependency arraignment hearing for a minor child born into an intact marriage. DCF objected becaus…
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 Certiorari Review Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D19-1415
D.A., FATHER OF D.A., A CHILD AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM,
Respondents.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 18, 2019
Petition for Writ of Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Charles G. Crawford, Judge.
Kelley Schaeffer, of Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Petitioner.
Thomasina F. Moore and Joanna Summers Brunell, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem, Tallahassee, for Respondent, Guardian ad Litem Office.
No Appearance for other Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Children and Families (DCF) seeks certiorari review of an order directing it to pay for DNA testing of a putative father in a dependency matter concerning a child born into an intact marriage. Because we find that the order departs from the essential requirements of law and will cause irreparable harm that cannot be cured on
D.A., the putative father of D.A., a minor child, requested DNA testing at a dependency arraignment hearing. DCF objected because, at that time, the putative father had not filed a petition to establish paternity, and the biological mother's husband, who was presumed to be the legal father, had not been served and was not present to express his intentions as to the child. As explained below, we agree with DCF that the order should be quashed.
First, this Court has jurisdiction to review the order because error in an order requiring a child to submit to paternity testing cannot be corrected on plenary appeal once the testing is completed. See Dep't of Rev. ex rel. Meeker v. Silva, 214 So. 3d 766, 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing State, Dep't of Rev. ex rel. Striggles v. Standifer, 990 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). Second, the order departs from the essential requirements of law because no party has put the issue of paternity into controversy and there was no evidence or testimony to support the trial court's oral findings of good cause. See id. at 769 (citing Dep't of Rev. ex rel. Corbitt v. Alletag, 156 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)). The putative father has not filed any pleadings raising a claim of paternity, see id., and the biological mother's husband is presumed by law to be the child's legal father. See Simmonds v. Perkins, 247 So. 3d 397, 400–02 (Fla. 2018). Finally, because it may become an issue on remand, we note that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it ordered DCF to pay for the paternity testing. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. K.R., 946 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ("[A]n order of a trial court compelling a governmental department or agency to pay for a service or to
ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Treneka Simmonds v. Connor Perkins, 247 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 2018)
- Fla. Dep't of Revenue by v. Alletag, 156 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. K.R., 946 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Dep't OF Juv. Just. v. C.M., 704 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Dep't OF Revenue v. Silva, 214 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)