IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF M.P.S.H., PETITIONER,
v.
D.H., RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner wife seeks review of an order granting the husband’s motion to compel the parties and their newborn child to submit to HLA blood testing. The order was entered at an interlocutory stage of a dissolution of marriage proceeding in which provision has been made for temporary relief regarding custody, shared parental responsibility, and child support payments. Each of the parties has expressed doubt or outright denial that the husband is the father of the child. Thus, the respondent husband sought court required HLA blood testing. Petitioner contends here that respondent is estopped to deny he is the father, based upon res judicata, collateral and equitable estoppel.
Without passing on the validity of those contentions, since they have not been addressed by the trial court, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order compelling HLA blood testing, and remand the cause to the trial court to consider the respective contentions of the parties prior to making its redetermination that such blood testing is appropriate in this case. See T.D.D., Husband, Petitioner v. M.J.D.D., Wife, Respondent, 453 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitcairn v. Francine Vowell, 580 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ther and has been held out as the child’s father, the question of estoppel also must be decided before respondent can be entitled to compel another man to submit to an involuntary physical examination and disprove paternity, citing M.P.S.H. v. D.H., 516 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Petitioner contends that he is not asserting any “new” legal principle that has no author [*221] itative support, because it is a departure from the essential requirements of law to compel discovery when the law neither requires…1 / 3
-
Marshek v. Marshek, 599 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…the majority relies upon three cases in which the Fourth District held that a trial judge must resolve a non-movant’s claim of estoppel before granting a motion for HLA testing. S.W.T. v. C.A.P., 575 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); M.P.S.H. v. D.H., 516 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); T.D.D. v. M.J.D.D., 453 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). It should be noted, however, that the Fourth District decided M.P.S.H. and T.D.D. before section 742.12(1) was amended. In S.W.T., decided after the amendment became effect…1 / 2
-
S.W.T. v. C.A.P., 575 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…el. We hold that it was error for the trial court to enter the order compelling the HLA blood testing without first determining whether the wife is estopped from challenging the paternity of the minor child. In re the Marriage of M.P.S.H. v. D.H., 516 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); T.D.D. v. M.J.D.D. 453 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- T.D.D. v. M.J.D.D., 453 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)