PAULETTE JEAN SCHAFFER AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE HONORABLE J. JEFFERSON OVERBY OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, RESPONDENT
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.
A Florida court vacated a trial court order requiring HLA blood tests to determine paternity in a URESA child support action, holding that a prior California judgment establishing paternity and modifying child support was entitled to full faith and credit and could not be reopened.
The trial court was bound by full faith and credit and res judicata principles to honor the California judgment and may not reopen the paternity issue or order HLA blood tests where no cause has been shown why full faith and credit should not be given to the California judgment as modified.
[1] A prior California judgment adjudicating paternity and ordering child support, as modified by stipulation, is entitled to full faith and credit and res judicata effect in…
[2] A trial court may not reopen the issue of paternity and order blood tests when a valid prior judgment has already established paternity.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court was bound by full faith and credit and res judicata principles to honor the California judgment and may not now reopen the paternity issue and order HLA blood tests for the father, mother, and minor child”
This quote captures the core holding of the case, establishing that full faith and credit and res judicata principles prevented the Florida court from reopening a settled paternity determination from California.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA California court adjudicated the father as the natural father of the minor child in 1979 and ordered child support payments. In 1980, the father sti…
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 Paternity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the mother of a minor child and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services seeking review of a trial court order directing the mother, father, and minor child to submit to HLA blood tests to determine the child’s paternity. This order was entered in a URESA child support action instituted below by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services against the father. We have jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1957); Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. 2d 541 (1942).
Because (a) a California court in 1979 adjudicated the father herein to be the natural father of the minor child and ordered the father to make certain child support payments, (b) the father stipulated with the mother before the California court in 1980 to a modification of this judgment, and (c) no cause has been shown why full faith and credit should not be given to this California judgment as modified, we conclude that the trial court was bound by full faith and credit and res judicata principles to honor the California judgment and may not now reopen the paternity issue and order HLA blood tests for the father, mother, and minor child.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See, e.g., Newton v. Newton, 245 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla.1971); Gaylord v. Gaylord, 45 So. 2d 507, 510 (Fla.1950); Vereen v. Vereen, 581 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Garland v. Lewis, 547 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Miller v. Cowart, 546 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Cohen v. American Legion, 546 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Department of Health & Rehab. Serv. v. Chambers, 472 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Opel, 620 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…d him in the original paternity action. Petitioners correctly assert that the Indiana judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. People of the State of Arkansas on Behalf of Smith v. Smith, 398 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Schaffer v. Overby, 613 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In Smith the former husband denied paternity for the first time when answering a URESA petition initiated in Arkansas. The Florida court made a finding he was not the father and so had no duty of support, despite suggestions that…
-
The Cadle Co. v. JAY, 907 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…w clearly holds that a Florida court should not attempt to determine the validity of a judgment or decree of a sister state or foreign country unless something appears on the face of the record which discloses its invalidity. See Schaffer v. Overby, 613 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding Florida trial court bound by full faith and credit and res judicata principles to honor California adjudication that father was natural father of minor child and could not reopen paternity issue by ordering HLA blood test…
Authorities Cited
- Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957)
- Uhlan Stanley Newton v. Newton, 245 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1971)
- Gaylord v. Gaylord, 45 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1950)
- Michelle Miller & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Cowart, 546 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Chambers, 472 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Vereen v. Vereen, 581 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Garland v. Lewis, 547 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Cohen v. The Am. Legion, 546 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)