GERALD V. COX, APPELLANT,
v.
TERRY ANN COX, N/K/A TERRY ANN ANDERSON, 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.
Trial court properly exercised jurisdiction to determine paternity implicitly during dissolution proceedings when the petition alleged the child was issue of the parties and the allegation was not contested, even though Chapter 742 provides a separate paternity procedure.
A trial court has jurisdiction to determine paternity implicitly during dissolution proceedings when the dissolution petition alleges the child is issue of the parties, the allegation is not traversed, and child support is ordered.
[1] A trial court may determine paternity implicitly during dissolution proceedings when the petition alleges the child is issue of the parties and the allegation is not cont…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child was born three months before the parties' marriage. The appellee filed a dissolution petition alleging the child was issue of the parties and …
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 Contempt For Failure To Pay Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order of contempt for failure to pay child support. Appellant specifically challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction as it relates to a determination of paternity during dissolution proceedings. Appellee filed a form petition for dissolution in which it was alleged that the child, born three months before the marriage, was issue of the parties and sought custody and support thereof. The trial court granted dissolution pursuant to a judgment of default and awarded child custody and support payments to appellee. Impliedly, paternity was established. Appellant, now, in contesting the order of contempt, argues that paternity was improperly determined during the dissolution proceeding, as the proper procedure for determining paternity is set out under Chapter 742, Florida Statutes (1983). Hence, appellant argues, the trial court was without jurisdiction to resolve the issue of paternity. We disagree and find that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine paternity where the petition for dissolution alleged that the child was issue of the parties, the allegation was not traversed, and the trial court ordered child support to be paid. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, C.J., and JOANOS and NIM-MONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betty J. Biddle & the Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Salozzo, 522 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…tative Servs. v. Wright, 498 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Decker v. Hunter, 460 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Johnson v. Johnson, 395 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); see also Davis v. Dieujuste, 496 So. 2d 806, 809-10 (Fla.1986). Cf. Cox v. Cox, 493 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The trial court’s implied reliance on the doctrine of laches to deny enforcement of payment of arrearages is error; the husband did not plead or prove the affirmative defense of laches. See Wood v. Hunter, 504 So. 2d 553 (Fla.…