IDERIOUS LEE LOVE
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM
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.
Iderious Lee Love appealed a child support determination by the Department of Revenue, challenging the agency's jurisdiction over paternity matters. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that once paternity has been established through prior proceedings, the father bears the burden of proving his challenge rather than forcing the department to re-litigate paternity.
The court affirmed that the Department of Revenue lacks jurisdiction to hear disputed paternity claims under § 409.2563(2)(e), Fla. Stat. Once paternity has been established by prior judicial proceeding, affidavit, or birth certificate, the father is not a putative father, and the burden shifts to the father to commence his own circuit court action to disprove the established paternity rather than forcing the department to re-litigate the issue.
[1] The Department of Revenue and the Division of Administrative Hearings lack jurisdiction to determine issues of disputed paternity.
[2] A father's request for a DNA test in a Department of Revenue administrative child support proceeding does not automatically terminate the proceeding or compel the Departm…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This section does not grant jurisdiction to the department or the Division of Administrative Hearings to hear or determine issues of . . . disputed paternity . . . .”
Establishes the statutory basis for denying the department jurisdiction over paternity disputes
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIderious Lee Love was subject to a child support proceeding before the Department of Revenue's Child Support Program. Love apparently sought to contes…
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 Paternity Establishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 409.2563(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“This section does not grant jurisdiction to the department or the Division of Administrative Hearings to hear or determine issues of . . . disputed paternity . . . .”);
Fernandez v. Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support, 971 So. 2d 875, 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“When paternity has already been established by affidavit, a birth certificate, or a prior judicial proceeding, the father is not a ‘putative father’ and DOR, the mother, or the child do not bear the burden of proving paternity. A father’s response, ‘need DNA test,’ to a DOR administrative proceeding for child support does not by itself terminate the proceeding or require DOR to commence a circuit court action to establish paternity.
Rather, the burden is then on the respondent to commence his own action in the circuit court to prove that what was previously admitted, his fatherhood, is in fact a falsehood.”) (citations omitted); McGee v. McGee, 264 So. 3d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“[W]ithout a transcript of the hearing we cannot presume that the trial court’s determination of the former husband’s share of the child’s need for support was unsupported by sufficient evidence presented at trial.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McGee v. Angeline E. McGee, 264 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- Fernandez v. Dep't OF Revenue, 971 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)