T.D. v. M.M.M.

730 So.2d 873 (1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The child's mother, T.D. (W), and legal father, M.M.M. (H) were married in October of 1984. In October of 1985, W met F, who was also married at the time and had adulterous sexual relations for approximately seven and one-half years. In March of 1988, W conceived a child, C.M. W informed F that she suspected he was the father because she had not been intimate with her husband at the time of conception. W also informed H that he was the father of the child. After the child's birth in December of 1988. F testified that he regularly visited W and child throughout the affair and always suspected that he was the child's father. In November of 1992, W and H separated. In April of 1993, the child and F underwent DNA paternity testing. The DNA test results confirmed to a 99.5% probability that F was the child's biological father. That same month, W and H were granted a divorce. The trial court named W as the domiciliary parent and granted H visitation. W ended the affair with F and would not allow F access to the child. In December 1994, F intervened in the legal parents' domestic proceedings seeking recognition of his biological paternity, joint custody, and visitation. In December 1994, F intervened in the legal parents' domestic proceedings seeking recognition of his biological paternity, joint custody, and visitation. H and W objected to this intervention. The court held that F's suit was not untimely because 'his suspicions of parenthood were not confirmed until he received the results of the [DNA test]' and that visitation rights of any parent must be considered in light of the best interests of the child. The court recognized F as the child's biological father and ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine visitation rights and to assess income for potential child support issues. H and W appealed and the court of appeal found for the legal parents reversed the trial court and dismissed F from the proceedings. F appealed claiming that the court of appeals misapplied the doctrine of laches.