Can a Florida Judge Order a Paternity Test for a Child Who Already Has a Legal Father?

In Florida, there is a longstanding common law rule that a man seeking a paternity test for a child who already has a “legal father” must first establish that such testing would serve the child’s “best interest.” In a landmark 1993 decision, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Privette, the Florida Supreme Court held that in such cases, the putative biological father must provide “clear and convincing evidence” that DNA testing would serve the child’s interests “even if” it “proves the child’s factual illegitimacy.” Indeed, the Court was concerned about removing a child from the care of an established, caring legal parent and forcing them to “regard strangers as their fathers.”

Protecting a Child’s Best Interest Not Just a Matter of “Legitimacy”

The Grivette case dealt with a legal father who was married to the child’s mother. But what about a case where a child’s legal father is not married to the mother? Does the Grivette requirement of “clear and convincing evidence” before performing a paternity test still apply?

The Florida Third District Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue. In Rosich-Medina v. Chilaud, a child was born in 2018. The birth occurred in a state that was not Florida. At the time, the child’s mother was unmarried but in a relationship with a man who acknowledged legal paternity. The other state therefore recognized the man as the legal father.

The mother, the legal father, and the child later relocated to Florida. In 2023, a Spanish national claiming to be the child’s biological father filed a petition in Florida court to establish paternity, as well as time sharing and child support obligations with respect to the child. The putative biological father’s petition alleged that he and the mother were previously in a “sexual relationship” with the mother that resulted in the child’s conception. While the mother admitted to the sexual relationship, she denied the Spanish national was the biological father.

As part of his case, the putative biological father sought DNA testing of himself and the child. The trial court granted this motion. Despite Grivette‘s requirements of clear and convincing evidence that the court first determined such testing was in the child’s best interest, the judge reasoned that Grivette only applied when the mother and legal father were married. Since the parents were never married, and thus the child’s “legitimacy” was not at issue, the judge said there was no need to conduct a best-interest analysis.

The Third District disagreed. It held that the “rule announced in Privette is not limited to protecting the sanctity of only one type of legally established family relationship.” The broader goal of the Privette decision was not protecting a child’s legitimacy, the appellate court reasoned, but rather the “emotional and financial support provided by stable family relationships.” Accordingly, before the trial court in this case could order genetic testing, the judge had to first determine whether such tests would be in the child’s best interest.

Contact a Port St. Lucie Paternity Lawyer Today

Paternity disputes are often factually and emotionally complex situations for everyone involved. Our Port St. Lucie paternity lawyers can advise you and represent your interests in court. Contact Baginski, Brandt & Brandt today at 772-466-0707 to schedule a consultation.

Sources:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12081719585041831988

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15116541170571572574