Tijerino v. Estrella, 843 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Tijerino v. Estrella, 843 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a putative father does not have standing to seek to establish paternity of a child, where the child was born into an intact marriage, and where the married woman and her husband object to the paternity action.”
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Martinez v. Valerio (fladistctapp, 2018-10-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Martinez v. Valerio
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a putative father does not have standing to seek to establish paternity of a child, where the child was born into an intact marriage, and where the married woman and her husband object to the paternity action.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Treneka Simmonds v. Connor Perkins
Fla. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
Because of the strength of this presumption, many courts have held that "a putative father has no right to seek to establish paternity of a child who was born into an intact marriage when the married woman and her husband object." Johnson v. Ruby , 771 So.2d 1275 , 1275-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ; see also Tijerino v. Estrella , 843 So.2d 984 , 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." CONNOR PERKINS v. TRENEKA SIMMONDS
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Because of the strength of this presumption, many courts have held that “a putative father has no right to seek to establish paternity of a child who was born into an intact marriage when the married woman and her husband object.” Johnson v. Ruby, 771 So.2d 1275, 1275-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Tijerino v. Estrella, 843 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nevitt v. Bonomo
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
However, a putative biological father “has no right to seek to establish paternity of a child who was born into an intact marriage when the *1082 married woman and her husband object.” Johnson v. Ruby, 771 So.2d 1275, 1275-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Tijerino v. Estrella, 843 So.2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); S.D. v. AG., 764 So.2d 807, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); S.B. v. D.H., 736 So.2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); I.A. v. H.H., 710 So.2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); G.F.C., 686 So.2d at 1386 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lander v. Smith
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
As a result of the strong presumption of legitimacy, "[t]he prevailing law in this state, however, is that a putative father has no right to seek to establish paternity of a child who was born into an intact marriage when the married woman and her husband object." Johnson v. Ruby, 771 So.2d 1275, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Tijerino v. Estrella, 843 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Bellomo v. Gagliano, 815 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)("The court expressly held that section 742.011 does not extend to permit the alleged biological father of a child born of an intact marriage to su…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pastor TIJERINO, Appellant,
v.
Derlin P. ESTRELLA, Appellee.
3D02-1390.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 30, 2003.
843 So. 2d 984
Gersten, Fletcher, and Shevin.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 86%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

Solangel Verde, Hialeah, for appellant.

[*985] Pierce E. Rivera, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and SHEVIN, JJ.

GERSTEN, Judge.

We affirm the order below finding the trial court properly dismissed the appellant's paternity suit. A putative father does not have standing to seek to establish paternity of a child, where the child was born into an intact marriage, and where the married woman and her husband object to the paternity action. See Johnson v. Ruby, 771 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); I.A. v. H.H., 710 So.2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); G.F.C. v. S.G., 686 So.2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

The presumption of the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law and is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition; statutes preserving this presumption do not violate constitutional rights. See Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 124, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989)("[T]he Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.").

We decline the appellant's invitation to depart from the well established authority in this State and others, which recognizes the importance of preserving the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock. See G.F.C. v. S.G., 686 So.2d at 1382. Opening the door to unfettered challenges to the sanctity of marriage, as well as to the potential for baseless and intrusive paternity challenges, is not in the best interests of our children.

Affirmed.