IN RE THE INTEREST OF J. P.
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.
In this juvenile support case, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed an order requiring the appellant to pay $20 weekly for child support, rejecting his challenges to both the court's paternity finding and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the support obligation.
The court held that while the trial court's explicit finding of legal paternity was unnecessary surplusage, the record and public policy supported the presumption that the appellant was the father because a strong presumption exists that children born in wedlock are legitimate. The presumption may only be overcome by presenting the paternity issue and sufficient evidence to a court of competent jurisdiction. The evidence fully supported finding the appellant legally responsible for child support.
“We therefore regard the quoted words as surplusage. Nevertheless we hold that the record and public policy support the finding of the lower court that the respondent-appellant is presumed to be the father because of the strong presumption that a child born in wedlock is legitimate.”
Establishes that while the explicit paternity finding was unnecessary, the presumption of legitimacy for children born in wedlock supports the finding of legal responsibility for support.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant's ex-wife filed a petition seeking child support for a minor child. The appellant claimed he and the child's mother divorced four days a…
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 Legitimacy cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in and for Dade County directing the appellant, respondent below, to make weekly payments of $20.00 for the care and support of the minor child involved in this cause. The appellant urges first that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court exceeded its authority when it resolved the issue of paternity raised in the proceedings below by the respondent-appellant’s sworn answer, second that the evidence before the lower court was insufficient to sustain the order appealed from.
The appellee mother initiated' this cause when she filed a sworn petition seeking support for her minor child. In response to the petition, the appellant alleged that he and the child’s mother had been divorced four days after the birth of the child, that the parties had physically separated immediately prior to the filing of the divorce, and that he was not the father of the child.
The appellant raised the issue of paternity in the Juvenile Court and now objects to the determination of that issue by that court. We must point out that it was not necessary for the lower court to find upon this record that “the Respondent is the legal father of said child” to enable it to enter the only order it was called upon to enter — that for the support of the child. We therefore regard the quoted words as surplusage. Nevertheless we hold that the record and public policy support the finding of the lower court that the respondent-appellant is presumed to be the father because of the strong presumption that a child born in wedlock is legitimate. Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 16 So.2d 163 (1944); In re Ruff’s Estate, 159 Fla. 777, 32 So.2d 840, 175 A.L.R. 370 (1947). The presumption that the appellant is the father of the child may be overcome if the issue of paternity and sufficient evidence are presented to a court of competent jurisdiction.
The appellant’s second point fails to present error since the record fully supports the finding that the appellant is legally responsible for the support of a child born in wedlock.
We direct that the order appealed from be amended by striking the finding that “the Respondent is the legal father of said child” and affirm the order as amended.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boulder Venture S., LLC v. Sabow, 204 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…d supplemental final judgment as modified by our instructions on remand. See, e.g., Coulson v. Herr, 98 Fla. 623,124 So. 736, 736 (1929) (affirming final judgment with directions to eliminate surplusage from the decree); cf. In the Interest of J.P., 220 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (holding that trial court’s finding of paternity was surplusage unnecessary to the entry of order providing for support and affirming that order with instructions to delete the finding). Affirmed; remanded with instructions.…
Authorities Cited
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873 (Fla. 1944)
- In re Est. of Elliott Ruff v. Alaine Ruff Braynon and Elliott Ruff, JR., 159 Fla. 777 (Fla. 1947)