Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
On January 2, 2005, M, gave birth to a child. At the time of birth, no father was named on the child's birth certificate. F's name was added to the child's birth certificate with his consent on September 21, 2005. Prior to F's voluntary acknowledgment as the child's father, M informed F that there was no more than a fifty percent chance that he was the child's biological father. On the following day, September 22, 2005, F married M. One of F's reasons for taking these steps included his express desire to provide support to the child by making the child eligible for dependent benefits arising from F's enlistment in the armed forces. On November 30, 2006, the parties divorced, and without objection by either party, the divorce decree identified the child as the child of their marriage. On January 31, 2010, F filed a petition to disestablish paternity of the child pursuant to section 742.18. There are seven statutory requirements, which must be satisfied to prevail on a petition to disestablish paternity. Two of the statutory requirements are at issue in this case. A trial court could grant relief upon a finding that: (a) Newly discovered evidence relating to the paternity of the child has come to the petitioner's knowledge since the initial paternity determination or establishment of a child support obligation. (b) The scientific test required in paragraph (1)(b) was properly conducted. F contends that the results of scientific testing showed that he was not the biological father of the child and that this constituted newly discovered evidence for purposes of section 742.18(1). The trial court granted M's motion to dismiss finding that F's DNA test results were not newly discovered evidence within the meaning of the statute because F was fully aware of the possibility of his non-paternity and of the means to resolve any question he had in that regard. F appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co