RICHARD EUGENE PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
DARLENE STEVENS, 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.
A putative father does not have a cause of action to establish paternity when the mother denies he is the father.
Appellant sought to establish paternity of a child born out of wedlock to appellee, who denied appellant was the father. The trial court dismissed the…
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 Child Born Out Of Wedlock cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, petitioner below, brings this appeal from an order on respondent’s [appellee] motion to dismiss dated November 10, 1977, entered by the trial court dismissing his petition for a final judgment establishing his paternity as the natural and legal father of a minor child born out of wedlock to appellee. We affirm.
At common law, the putative father of an illegitimate child had neither rights nor obligations toward that child. When statutes were devised to protect the interests of illegitimate children, the mother alone was given the right to institute proceedings to determine paternity in order that the innocent child have the benefit of support from the father. See generally Gammon v. Cobb, 335 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1976); Clarke v. Blackburn, 151 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); and deMoya v. dePena, 148 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
In the instant case, appellee denies that appellant is the father of the child. We are unaware of any authority which gives a putative father a cause of action to establish that he is the father of a child who the mother denies is his. Chapter 742, Florida Statutes (1977), provides the jurisdictional basis for a court to determine paternity. No case interpreting this Chapter has gone so far as to read into it an intent to give such a cause of action to a putative father. Absent legislative revision of Chapter 742, a putative father is without the right to have himself declared the father of a child who the mother denies is his. Ford v. Loeffler, - So. 2d -(Fla. 3d DCA, opinion filed September 19, 1978). Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1980)…of whether appellant may bring an action for declaratory judgment to determine his paternity. The trial court below, in holding that a putative father may not bring a declaratory action, relied on Ford v. Loeffler, supra. See also Perez v. Stevens, 362 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 837 (1979). In Ford v. Loeffler plaintiff alleged that he was the father of defendant’s child and sought visitation rights. In affirming the dismissal of plaintiff’s co…
Authorities Cited
- Gammon v. Cobb, 335 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1976)
- Clarke v. Blackburn, 151 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- de Moya v. Athenia Leonard de Pena, 148 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)