Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
B.J.Y. v. M.A.green2 sentences1996The B.J.Y. ease involved a child born out of wedlock, see B.J.Y. v. M.A., 594 So.2d 816, 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), approved, 617 So.2d at 1061, 1064, and thus did not present any issue involving Privette . 1996The B.J.Y. ease involved a child born out of wedlock, see B.J.Y. v. M.A., 594 So.2d 816, 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), approved, 617 So.2d at 1061, 1064, and thus did not present any issue involving Privette . | 2 | 2 |
B.J.Y. v. M.A.green2 sentences1996She points out that in B.J.Y. v. M.A, 617 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1993), the Florida Supreme Court held that there is a right to a jury trial in a paternity action. 1996She points out that in B.J.Y. v. M.A, 617 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1993), the Florida Supreme Court held that there is a right to a jury trial in a paternity action. | 2 | 2 |
Michael H. v. Gerald D.green2 sentences2018See id. at 308-09 (citing Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) ). 5 Although the biological father in Privette was not the party seeking to have his paternity declared, the test we established for that case, which involved an effort by the State to locate a father to *403 provide child support, id. at 307 , is appropriate for cases where it is the biological father who seeks an adjudication of paternity. 6 Unlike the test in effect at early common law, which required proof from witnesses other than the marital couple that the husband lacked access to the w 2018See id. at 308-09 (citing Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) ). 5 Although the biological father in Privette was not the party seeking to have his paternity declared, the test we established for that case, which involved an effort by the State to locate a father to *403 provide child support, id. at 307 , is appropriate for cases where it is the biological father who seeks an adjudication of paternity. 6 Unlike the test in effect at early common law, which required proof from witnesses other than the marital couple that the husband lacked access to the w | 1 | 1 |
S.D. v. A.G.green2 sentences2018See S.D. v. A.G. , 764 So.2d 807 , 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (observing that cases involving children conceived between a married woman and a man who is not her husband are intensely fact-sensitive and "difficult, if not impossible, to address within the case law method"); Lohman , 963 So.2d at 988 (noting that the law has "struggled to balance the sanctity of marriage, the right of privacy, and the best interest of children against the knowledge of paternity acquired by DNA testing"). 7 As shown through our decisions in Kendrick and Privette , we agree with the Fourth District that the presumpti 2018See S.D. v. A.G. , 764 So.2d 807 , 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (observing that cases involving children conceived between a married woman and a man who is not her husband are intensely fact-sensitive and "difficult, if not impossible, to address within the case law method"); Lohman , 963 So.2d at 988 (noting that the law has "struggled to balance the sanctity of marriage, the right of privacy, and the best interest of children against the knowledge of paternity acquired by DNA testing"). 7 As shown through our decisions in Kendrick and Privette , we agree with the Fourth District that the presumpti | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See S.D. v. A.G. , 764 So.2d 807 , 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (observing that cases involving children conceived between a married woman and a man who is not her husband are intensely fact-sensitive and "difficult, if not impossible, to address within the case law method"); Lohman , 963 So.2d at 988 (noting that the law has "struggled to balance the sanctity of marriage, the right of privacy, and the best interest of children against the knowledge of paternity acquired by DNA testing"). 7 As shown through our decisions in Kendrick and Privette , we agree with the Fourth District that the presumpti 2018See S.D. v. A.G. , 764 So.2d 807 , 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (observing that cases involving children conceived between a married woman and a man who is not her husband are intensely fact-sensitive and "difficult, if not impossible, to address within the case law method"); Lohman , 963 So.2d at 988 (noting that the law has "struggled to balance the sanctity of marriage, the right of privacy, and the best interest of children against the knowledge of paternity acquired by DNA testing"). 7 As shown through our decisions in Kendrick and Privette , we agree with the Fourth District that the presumpti | 1 | 1 |
Jordan Alexander Drouin v. Ruby Megan Stuber n/k/a Ruby Megan Kanegreen2 sentences2018See Drouin v. Stuber , 168 So.3d 305 , 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (declining to find the Privette test applicable in part because the child did not "face the threat of being declared illegitimate"). 2018See Drouin v. Stuber , 168 So.3d 305 , 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (declining to find the Privette test applicable in part because the child did not "face the threat of being declared illegitimate"). | 1 | 1 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2018See id. at 308-09 (citing Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) ). 5 Although the biological father in Privette was not the party seeking to have his paternity declared, the test we established for that case, which involved an effort by the State to locate a father to *403 provide child support, id. at 307 , is appropriate for cases where it is the biological father who seeks an adjudication of paternity. 6 Unlike the test in effect at early common law, which required proof from witnesses other than the marital couple that the husband lacked access to the w 2018See id. at 308-09 (citing Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) ). 5 Although the biological father in Privette was not the party seeking to have his paternity declared, the test we established for that case, which involved an effort by the State to locate a father to *403 provide child support, id. at 307 , is appropriate for cases where it is the biological father who seeks an adjudication of paternity. 6 Unlike the test in effect at early common law, which required proof from witnesses other than the marital couple that the husband lacked access to the w | 1 | 1 |
Nostrand v. Olivierigreen2 sentences2018Specifically, in Kendrick v. Everheart , we recognized that the biological father of a married woman's children has the right to bring an action to establish his parental rights as the father as long as he has "manifested a substantial and continuing concern for the welfare of the children." 390 So.2d at 61 ; see also Van Nostrand v. Olivieri , 427 So.2d 374 , 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (concluding that Kendrick establishes the test for a putative biological father's standing). 2018Specifically, in Kendrick v. Everheart , we recognized that the biological father of a married woman's children has the right to bring an action to establish his parental rights as the father as long as he has "manifested a substantial and continuing concern for the welfare of the children." 390 So.2d at 61 ; see also Van Nostrand v. Olivieri , 427 So.2d 374 , 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (concluding that Kendrick establishes the test for a putative biological father's standing). | 1 | 1 |
DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERVICES v. Privetteyellow2 sentences2018However, we have recognized that someone other than the mother's husband can place the presumption at issue in a proper action, see Kendrick , 390 So.2d at 57 -60 , and developed the substantive test for rebutting the presumption in cases where the mother's husband seeks to maintain his status as the child's legal father, Privette , 617 So.2d at 309 ; cf. Daniel v. Daniel , 695 So.2d 1253 , 1255 (Fla. 1997) (declining to apply the Privette test in a dissolution of marriage action where the husband raised the issue of paternity, the parties stipulated that the child was not biologically related 2018However, we have recognized that someone other than the mother's husband can place the presumption at issue in a proper action, see Kendrick , 390 So.2d at 57 -60 , and developed the substantive test for rebutting the presumption in cases where the mother's husband seeks to maintain his status as the child's legal father, Privette , 617 So.2d at 309 ; cf. Daniel v. Daniel , 695 So.2d 1253 , 1255 (Fla. 1997) (declining to apply the Privette test in a dissolution of marriage action where the husband raised the issue of paternity, the parties stipulated that the child was not biologically related | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daniel v. Daniel
green
2 sentences2018However, we have recognized that someone other than the mother's husband can place the presumption at issue in a proper action, see Kendrick , 390 So.2d at 57 -60 , and developed the substantive test for rebutting the presumption in cases where the mother's husband seeks to maintain his status as the child's legal father, Privette , 617 So.2d at 309 ; cf. Daniel v. Daniel , 695 So.2d 1253 , 1255 (Fla. 1997) (declining to apply the Privette test in a dissolution of marriage action where the husband raised the issue of paternity, the parties stipulated that the child was not biologically related 2018However, we have recognized that someone other than the mother's husband can place the presumption at issue in a proper action, see Kendrick , 390 So.2d at 57 -60 , and developed the substantive test for rebutting the presumption in cases where the mother's husband seeks to maintain his status as the child's legal father, Privette , 617 So.2d at 309 ; cf. Daniel v. Daniel , 695 So.2d 1253 , 1255 (Fla. 1997) (declining to apply the Privette test in a dissolution of marriage action where the husband raised the issue of paternity, the parties stipulated that the child was not biologically related | 2 | 1998–2018 |
Kendrick v. Everheart
green
2 sentences2018However, we have recognized that someone other than the mother's husband can place the presumption at issue in a proper action, see Kendrick , 390 So.2d at 57 -60 , and developed the substantive test for rebutting the presumption in cases where the mother's husband seeks to maintain his status as the child's legal father, Privette , 617 So.2d at 309 ; cf. Daniel v. Daniel , 695 So.2d 1253 , 1255 (Fla. 1997) (declining to apply the Privette test in a dissolution of marriage action where the husband raised the issue of paternity, the parties stipulated that the child was not biologically related 2018However, we have recognized that someone other than the mother's husband can place the presumption at issue in a proper action, see Kendrick , 390 So.2d at 57 -60 , and developed the substantive test for rebutting the presumption in cases where the mother's husband seeks to maintain his status as the child's legal father, Privette , 617 So.2d at 309 ; cf. Daniel v. Daniel , 695 So.2d 1253 , 1255 (Fla. 1997) (declining to apply the Privette test in a dissolution of marriage action where the husband raised the issue of paternity, the parties stipulated that the child was not biologically related | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gfc v. Sg
green
2 sentences2018We take this opportunity to clarify that the Privette test applies when a putative biological father and a legal father both assert rights concerning the child, even though no child born to an intact marriage can ever be declared "illegitimate" under our current law. 7 For example, while evidence that the mother's husband has abused, abandoned, or neglected the child would be relevant to the child's best interests, see G.F.C. , 686 So.2d at 1387 , it might not be dispositive. 2018We take this opportunity to clarify that the Privette test applies when a putative biological father and a legal father both assert rights concerning the child, even though no child born to an intact marriage can ever be declared "illegitimate" under our current law. 7 For example, while evidence that the mother's husband has abused, abandoned, or neglected the child would be relevant to the child's best interests, see G.F.C. , 686 So.2d at 1387 , it might not be dispositive. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State ex rel. H. v. P.
green
2 sentences2018As Privette held, the presumption is overcome when there is a "clear and compelling reason based primarily on the child's best interests." Id. 6 We have said that the Privette test does not apply when the child does not face the threat of being declared "illegitimate" and when the legal father is not seeking to maintain his rights, while also stating that a child can never become "illegitimate" once the child is born into an intact marriage. 2018As Privette held, the presumption is overcome when there is a "clear and compelling reason based primarily on the child's best interests." Id. 6 We have said that the Privette test does not apply when the child does not face the threat of being declared "illegitimate" and when the legal father is not seeking to maintain his rights, while also stating that a child can never become "illegitimate" once the child is born into an intact marriage. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Robinson v. Dept. of Revenue
green
2 sentences1996We, therefore, remand for the trial court’s reconsideration in light of Robinson, supra, and with the blood test results, which were not challenged other than under the Privette rule, and the Alabama divorce decree, which is now available. 1996We, therefore, remand for the trial court’s reconsideration in light of Robinson, supra, and with the blood test results, which were not challenged other than under the Privette rule, and the Alabama divorce decree, which is now available. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.