CLARENCE W. DOWNS, APPELLANT,
v.
RACQUEL KING, 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.
Appellant sought visitation rights for himself and his mother to a minor child born out of wedlock. The trial court dismissed the petition, but the appellate court reversed in part, holding that appellant is entitled to a paternity determination before dismissal of his parental visitation claim, though he lacks standing to pursue grandparental visitation rights.
Appellant has no standing to seek grandparental visitation rights on behalf of his mother, but he is entitled to a determination of paternity before dismissal of his petition for his own parental visitation rights, as paternity must be resolved before considering visitation relief.
[1] A party seeking grandparental visitation rights lacks standing to bring an action on behalf of another individual seeking visitation.
[2] A putative father who has held himself out as the biological father and is recognized as such by the family may be entitled to a paternity test to establish his rights.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“While chapter 742 was initially intended to be the exclusive legal remedy for a mother to establish paternity, the statute does not preclude an action by a father to adjudicate paternity where necessary to determine certain existing rights.”
Establishes that putative fathers may seek paternity determination when necessary to protect their rights, including visitation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought visitation rights for himself and his mother to a minor child. Appellee, the maternal grandmother, opposed the motion arguing the cou…
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 Putative Father'S Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant challenges the dismissal of his petition for parental and grandparental visitation rights. We find no merit in appellant’s argument regarding grandparental visitation rights since he has no standing to bring an action for visitation on behalf of his mother. See ch. 752, Fla. Stat. (1995). We do, however, find merit in appellant’s argument that he is entitled to a determination of paternity before dismissal of his petition in regard to the request for his own visitation rights.
Appellant sought visitation rights to the minor child for himself and his mother. Appellee (maternal grandmother) responded to the motion and argued that the court had no jurisdiction to rule on appellant’s motion since the child was born out of wedlock, there had been no determination regarding paternity, and she was the guardian of the child pursuant to an award of temporary custody through the dependency court. The trial court dismissed appellant’s petition. On appeal, appellant contends that since his name is on the birth certificate, he has always held himself out to be the biological father of the child, and the family has always recognized him as such, he is entitled to a paternity test. We agree.
Chapter 742 provides a means for individuals to seek a determination of paternity when there is a legitimate interest in such determination. See Rogers v. Runnels, 448 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). While chapter 742 was initially intended to be the exclusive legal remedy for a mother to establish paternity, the statute does not preclude an action by a father to adjudicate paternity where necessary to determine certain existing rights. See Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1980); Guerrero v. Staglish, 400 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(recognizing the right of a putative father to couple a request for visitation rights with an action seeking to adjudicate paternity).
In the instant case, the issue of paternity must be resolved before there can be a consideration of the visitation relief sought by appellant. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court order dismissing his petition for parental visitation rights. Although appellee argued on appeal that the action was properly dismissed since appellant erroneously cited to Florida Statute 744.301, we note that appellant filed his petition pro se. It is clear that appellant is entitled to relief even though his petition was not perfectly drafted.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further consideration.
PARKER, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1980)
- Rogers v. L.K. Runnels, 448 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Hutchins v. State, 400 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)