Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ich the fiction was created. Sacks v. Sacks, 267 So.2d 73, 76 (Fla. 1972). The presumption of legitimacy is grounded upon public policy. However, for purposes of discovery, the legislature has established the public policy of Florida when it enacted section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1989), which provides in pertinent part: In any proceeding to establish paternity in law or in equity, the court on its own motion may or upon request of a party shall require the child, mother, and alleged father...

...nity. Therefore, the putative father does not have standing in the discovery phase of litigation to raise the presumption of legitimacy in avoidance of the potential ordering of support. Pitcairn v. Vowell, 580 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Because section 742.12(1) reflects the public policy of requiring HLA testing in paternity actions, the only relevant argument advanced by Privette is his constitutional claim to privacy....

...But several weeks after the blood samples were submitted for analysis, the laboratory reported a 99.7 percent probability that H.H. was K.H.'s biological father. Armed with the H.L.A. test result, H.H. moved for summary judgment on the question of paternity pursuant to section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Stat. (2010) (“The presumption of undue influence implements public policy against abuse of fiduciary or confidential relationships and is therefore a presumption shifting the burden of proof under sections 90.301-90.30Jp.” (emphasis supplied)); § 742.12(4), Fla....

...y presumption, the statute in question explicitly provides for such an application. See Hack v. Janes, 878 So.2d 440, 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (citing § 733.107(2), Fla. Stat. (2002)); Ferguson v. Williams, 566 So.2d 9, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citing § 742.12, Fla. Stat. (1989)); Jones v. Crawford, 552 So.2d 926, 927-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (citing § 742.12(1), Fla....

...As a result, under section 742.10(4), Mr. Price's acknowledgement constituted "an establishment of paternity and may be challenged in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact." Mr. Price alleged none of these bases in his answer. Further, section 742.12 only authorizes the trial court to order DNA testing "[i]n any proceeding to establish paternity." Because paternity had previously been established and Mr....

...MOTION FOR SCIENTIFIC PATERNITY TESTING ( ) Petitioner ( ) Respondent certifies that the following information is true: 1. At this time, other than testimony, very little or no substantial proof of paternity or nonpaternity is available in this action. 2. I request, under section 742.12, Florida Statutes, that the Court enter an order for appropriate scientific testing of the biological samples of Petitioner and Respondent and the minor child(ren) listed below, so that a determination of paternity of the minor child(r...

DCA 2010), might impact this statute. . See § 742.12(4), Florida Statutes (2009), concerning the probability

...ATERNITY TESTING ( ) Petitioner ( ) Respondent certifies that the following information is true: 1. At this time, other than testimony, very little or no substantial proof of paternity or nonpaternity is available in this action. 2. I request, under section 742.12, Florida Statutes, that the Court enter an order for appropriate scientific testing of the biological samples of Petitioner and Respondent and the minor child(ren) listed below, so that a determination of paternity of the minor child(r...

...ical probability of paternity must equal or exceed ninety-five per cent. If it is less than ninety-five per cent, as in this case, no presumption arises, and although the results are admissible, they should only be weighed along with other evidence. § 742.12, Fla....

...Based upon the tests, affidavits supporting the regularity of the processing, and an affidavit of Lambert that she engaged in sexual intercourse with only Valdes and Lambert during the conception period, Lambert filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of paternity "pursuant to section 742.12, Florida Statutes." That statute, which became effective October 1, 1986, provides in section (1) thereof: (1) In any proceeding to establish paternity in law or in equity, the court on its own motion may or upon request of a party sha...

...enter a summary judgment of paternity. If the HLA test results show the alleged father cannot be the biological father, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice. In opposition to the motion, Valdes filed no affidavits, but his counsel argued that section 742.12 was not applicable because its effective date was five months after commencement of this action....

...emporary support is filed. DOR argues that, "[a]s a matter of law, on a motion for temporary child support pursuant to section 742.031(1), when a verified blood test provides clear and convincing evidence of paternity pursuant to section 742.031(1), section 742.12(4), and section 742.12(6), the court is simply awarding the mandatory temporary child support." We disagree....

...ams had been involved with other men during the critical time periods. The trial court granted Williams' motions for summary judgment, finding that Ferguson was the father of *11 the two girls. [2] The trial court erred in entering summary judgment. Section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that HLA test results, "together with the opinions and conclusions of the test laboratory," are admissible in evidence "and should be weighed along with other evidence of the paternity of the alleged...

...at the alleged father is the biological father of the child. If a party fails to rebut the presumption of paternity which arose from the statistical probability of paternity of 95 percent or more, the court may enter a summary judgment of paternity. Section 742.12 creates a statutory presumption....

...results, Dutilly does not apply. [4] Although he stipulated to the admission of the HLA test results, Ferguson did not consent to a wholesale circumvention of the rules of evidence. Although the test results may be admitted into evidence pursuant to section 742.12, the records reflecting those results must be properly authenticated and a proper predicate must be laid....

...For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of final summary judgment determining paternity and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] Williams filed separate motions for each child. [2] No testimony was taken at the hearing, and no court reporter was present. [3] The presumption created by section 742.12 affects the burden of proof....

...3d DCA 1989) (pursuant to section 90.302(1), under "bursting bubble" presumption, once credible evidence introduced to disprove presumed fact, presumption no longer effective and case decided without it). [4] Counsel further argues that Dutilly is no longer viable precedent in light of the enactment of section 742.12. We reject that argument. As we stated earlier, section 742.12 merely creates a statutory presumption; it does not repeal the Florida Evidence Code....

...4th DCA 1990); Ferguson v. Williams, 566 So.2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dutilly v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 450 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In Ferguson, the court stated: Although [paternity] test results may be admitted into evidence pursuant to section 742.12, the records reflecting those results must be properly authenticated and a proper predicate must be laid....

...l be done by December 10, 1987. 7. The parties are hereby mutually enjoined from harassing, annoying, threatening or assaulting each other. ..... Appellant urges error in: (I) The denial of his right to have an additional blood test, [1] pursuant to section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1986) and the admission of the HLA test into evidence without proper foundation, (II) the requirement that he post a $25,000 bond as security for the support payments, and (III) the award of fifteen-hundred dollars p...

...ch was unreasonable and excessive and should not have been retroactive. The appellee has filed a cross-appeal contending that the trial court erred in limiting the amount of attorney's fees to be paid by Vidal. This appeal requires a construction of Section 742.12, Florida Statutes, [2] and particularly, a determination of what is a "reasonable" request for a retest and the effect of the use of the word "shall" in this subsection....

...Affirmed. COPE, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority that any error in the case was harmless because of the overwhelming evidence of paternity. I cannot agree, however, with the majority's interpretation of section 742.12(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Given the probability levels associated with the test, see id. § 742.12(1), the HLA test results will inevitably be given very great weight by the trier of fact and will in many instances be the dispositive factor supporting a determination of paternity. That being so, the legislature intended that litigants have, as a matter of right, the opportunity for a retest either at "the same laboratory or an independent laboratory at the expense of the party requesting additional testing." Id. § 742.12(2)....

...urt finds the request is reasonable, it must authorize the additional testing. The reason that the court must be involved in the retesting process is, of course, because a sample must be taken from the mother, the child, and the putative father. Id. § 742.12(1)....

...Holloway v. State, 342 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla. 1977); Bystrom v. Florida Rock Indus., Inc., 502 So.2d 35, 37 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1987). Until such time as scientific testing is shown to be infallible, litigants proceeding under section 742.12 are entitled, as a matter of right, to a second expert opinion....

...I would therefore hold that the trial court erred by not authorizing the second test, but that the error was harmless in this case. NOTES [1] The test results were 95.72% positive which created a rebuttable presumption that Vidal was the biological father of Franco Xavier Vidal. [2] Section 742.12, Florida Statutes ("Scientific testing to determine paternity") reads in part as follows: "(1) In any proceeding to establish paternity in law or in equity, the court on its own motion or upon request of a party may require the child,...

...o Determine Heirs. Greg Contino filed an answer to the motion to remove personal representative and to the petition to determine heirs. In May 1997, Greg Contino filed a Petition for Authorization of DNA Blood Typing, pursuant to sections 742.10 and 742.12, Florida Statutes (1997), stating that all of the beneficiaries denied that Daniel Contino was an heir....

...esumption of Daniel's paternity where he was born during Barbara and Charles Contino's marriage. Next, Greg Contino contends that the probate court erred by denying his petition for authorization for DNA blood typing, pursuant to sections 742.10 and 742.12, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...When the establishment of paternity has been raised and determined within an adjudicatory hearing brought under the statutes governing inheritance, or dependancy under workers' compensation or other similar compensation programs ..., it shall constitute the establishment of paternity for purposes of this chapter. Section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1997), states, "In any proceeding to establish paternity, the court on its own motion may require the child, mother, and alleged fathers to submit to scientific tests ......

...In January 2010, the boyfriend filed a petition to determine paternity and related relief. The petition alleged that there was the “requisite sexual contact” between the mother and the boyfriend to make it a “reasonable possibility” that the boyfriend was the baby’s father. § 742.12(2), Fla....

...r served” by the paternity test would be incorrect. Privette, 617 So.2d at 308 . At the prior hearing, the boyfriend demonstrated more than a “reasonable possibility of the requisite sexual contact” with the mother to justify a paternity test. § 742.12(2)....

...father." Following the GeneScreen test results, Morris filed a verified motion for additional testing, requesting the court to enter an order for additional HLA or DNA testing to be conducted by an independent laboratory at her expense, pursuant to section 742.12(2), Florida Statutes. As grounds for entry of such order, Morris alleged that she had not engaged in sexual intercourse with anyone other than Crawford and would provide sworn testimony to that effect. In addition, pursuant to section 742.12(2), Morris timely filed her notice of objections to the initial test results....

...At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Morris objected to the entry of summary judgment prior to her request for additional testing being heard. Notwithstanding her objection, the trial court sua sponte converted the summary judgment motion to a motion to dismiss under section 742.12 and dismissed the action with prejudice....

...tablish a proper predicate in order for the DNA test results to be admissible and (2) upon Morris' timely objection to said test results, and upon her request for additional testing, the trial court should not have dismissed the case with prejudice. Section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1995), relied upon by the court in dismissing the cause, states in pertinent part: (2) The test results, together with the opinions and conclusions of the test laboratory, shall be filed with the court....

...Proper predicate for admissibility Morris argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the cause by overlooking specific evidentiary requirements regarding the admission of the paternity test results. As discussed below, before the trial court could rely upon the language from section 742.12(3) which states, "[i]f the test results show the alleged father cannot be the biological father, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice," a proper predicate needed to be laid in order to admit the results of the paternity test. See §§ 742.12(2) and (5), Fla. Stat. (1995). Subsections (2) [1] and (5) of 742.12 make it clear that upon timely objection to paternity test results, the paternity test results shall be admitted upon a proper predicate being laid or upon third-party foundation testimony being presented. Crawford incorrectly argues that in accordance with subsection 742.12(3), if the test results show that the putative father cannot be the biological father, then the case shall be dismissed with prejudice, and the court need not look towards any evidence outside the four corners of the complaint....

...signatures of the persons who certified that the testing was done "in accordance with medically accepted procedures," and that the "conclusions are correct as reported." In finding that a proper predicate had not been laid, the court held that while section 742.12 creates a statutory presumption, it does not supercede the rules governing the admissibility of business records. See id. at 11. The court relied upon Dutilly and held that: Although [paternity] test results may be admitted into evidence pursuant to section 742.12, the records reflecting those results must be properly authenticated and a proper predicate must be laid....

...rocess. Id. Likewise, this court, in Seiler v. Stringham, 567 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), relied upon Dutilly and Ferguson in reversing an order establishing paternity. In Seiler, we held that although paternity test results are admissible under section 742.12, they must be properly authenticated and a proper predicate laid first....

...In this case, the trial court admitted the paternity test over Morris' objection as to its authenticity. Morris timely objected to the test results and objected to the admission of the results at the hearing claiming that a proper predicate had not been laid in accordance with section 742.12, the evidence code, and established case law....

...to gather evidence sufficient to convince the trial court of the necessity of a second test. Notwithstanding this failure, the trial court was still presented with a pending motion and "a reasonable request" for an additional test in accordance with section 742.12. However, the trial court never ruled on Morris' motion for additional testing. Section 742.12(4) provides in relevant part that: Subject to the limitations in subsection (2), if the test results ......

...We construe the use of "shall" in the statute as directory and next look to determine if the trial judge acted reasonably under all the circumstances, or to state it differently, whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying an additional test. Id. at 1151-1152. Recently, the Third District reiterated that subsection 742.12(4) authorizes additional testing where there is a showing of good cause under the criteria set forth in the statute....

...Under the facts of this case, we hold that good cause was presented for additional testing and that a reasonable request was pending before the court. We find that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on Morris' motion for additional testing and by circumventing subsection 742.12(4) in its entirety prior to its entry of dismissal of the action....

...action and to grant the motion for paternity testing by an independent laboratory. Based on the above reasons for reversal, we decline to address any other issues raised in this appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED. KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 742.12, Florida Statutes, was amended in 1994, adding language in subsection (2) requiring that an objection be made in writing and filed with the court 10 days prior to the hearing and if no objection is filed, the test results shall be admi...

...s rather than a paternity test. Father requested that the court vacate its final order adjudicating paternity and order a new DNA paternity test. Father's accompanying Motion for Scientific Paternity Testing sought scientific paternity testing under section 742.12, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...lure to pay alimony or child support under section 90.302(2) of the evidence code "to implement the public policy of this state"); Ferguson v. Williams, 566 So.2d 9, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (explaining that the statutory presumption of paternity under section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1989), is a rebuttable presumption and the legislature specifically provided that it was governed by section 90.304 of the evidence code)....

...se defenses, which to-date has not been heard by the trial court. Instead, the trial court elected to hear a motion filed by the donor requesting that the parties and the children first submit to scientific testing to determine paternity pursuant to section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...NOTES [1] Glover's contention that he is entitled to summary judgment of fatherhood based upon DNA testing alone is also statutorily inaccurate. Where DNA testing shows a 95 percent or more confidence level that the man is the biological father, it creates only a rebuttable presumption of fatherhood. § 742.12(4), Fla....

...ida, no solace could have been found in that clause by this couple. It is interesting to contemplate how the case of Florida Department of Children & Families v. Adoption of X.X.G., 45 So.3d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), might impact this statute. [12] See § 742.12(4), Florida Statutes (2009), concerning the probability for determining fatherhood of a child, which states that "[A] statistical probability of paternity of 95 percent or more creates a rebuttable presumption......

...M.J.D.D., 453 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Like the present case, both S.W.T. and T.D.D. involved a dissolution proceeding at which the husband asserted that the wife should be estopped from denying his paternity of a minor child born during the marriage. Section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes HLA testing in certain circumstances. The statute is expressly made applicable in any proceeding to establish paternity, and while the test results are not conclusive on the issue they may be received as evidence. But, to whatever extent section 742.12(1) might otherwise apply, such evidence would not be relevant if the party requesting the HLA test is estopped with regard to the issue of paternity....

...violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice." Id. at 96. In fact, if the court below had denied the motion seeking to compel petitioner to submit to HLA testing, the order, as explained infra, would have constituted a violation of a mandatory statutory requirement. Section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides, in pertinent part: In any proceeding to establish paternity in law or in equity, the court on its own motion may or upon request of a party shall require the child, mother, and alleged fathers to...

...r other scientific tests that are generally acceptable within the scientific community to show a probability of paternity... . (Emphasis added.) Prior to 1989, the underscored language read: "[T]he court ... upon request of a party may require... ." § 742.12(1), Fla....

...Roland, 65 So.2d 12, 14 (Fla. 1953). As a consequence, a "[c]ourt has no authority to change the plain meaning of a statute where the legislature has unambiguously expressed its intent." Barnes, 595 So.2d at 24. Although I conclude that the legislature, in enacting section 742.12(1), has clearly and expressly manifested its intent, I am not unaware that the Third District in Vidal v. Rivas, 556 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), construed the following language in section 742.12(2) as directory only: "If the test results or the expert analysis of the inherited characteristics is disputed, the court, upon reasonable request of a party, shall order that an additional test be made......

...1977), stating that although "shall" is ordinarily construed as having a mandatory effect, if there is any doubt as to the construction of the word, we are advised to consider its context and the legislative intent as expressed in the statute. The reason for applying a permissive construction to section 742.12(2), the Third District explained in Vidal, is that if the court interpreted the word "shall" as mandatory, it would render the phrase immediately before it, "upon reasonable request," meaningless....

...In contrast to subsection (2), there is no such qualifying language in subsection (1) promoting an interpretation that "shall" connotes anything other than its ordinary, mandatory meaning. Although I see no need to look to language other than that clearly expressed in section 742.12(1), nevertheless, because the majority has decided to issue the writ, I consider it helpful to explain the legislative purpose behind the enactment of the 1989 amendment to section 742.12(1)....

...Section 666(a)(5)(B) explicitly requires states to make paternity testing mandatory upon the request of any party to a contested paternity proceeding. [4] As a consequence of the mandate of the federal legislation, the Florida Senate and House of Representatives each passed bills changing the word "may" in section 742.12(1) to "shall." Senate Staff Analysis, at 1-2; Staff of Fla.H.R.Comm. on Judiciary, CS/HB 258 (1989) Staff Analysis 1-3 (final June 22, 1989) (Fla. State Archives). These legislative analyses explain that section 742.12(1) had formerly provided for HLA testing at the court's discretion, whereas the Family Support Act of 1988 required states to adopt procedures requiring genetic testing upon request of any party. It was thus stated that "the Legislature must act in order to meet these requirements." Senate Staff Analysis, at 2. Because respondent filed her motion for HLA testing after the legislature had amended section 742.12(1) to include the mandatory language required by Congress, the trial court had no discretion in ordering petitioner to comply....

...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 effective, the court simply followed M.P.S.H. and T.D.D., without mentioning section 742.12. Because the Fourth District did not consider the mandatory language of section 742.12(1), these cases do not support the conclusion that such language may be disregarded once a party raises the defense of estoppel....

...But several weeks after the blood samples were submitted for analysis, the laboratory reported a 99.7 percent probability that H.H. was K.H.’s biological father. Armed with the H.L.A. test result, H.H. moved for summary judgment on the question of paternity pursuant to section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. October 4, 2002. Rehearing Denied January 8, 2003. Seth E. Wright, Pensacola, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment of paternity established in the permanent support order pursuant to section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1999), because appellant failed to object to the test results that showed a 99.99 percent probability that he is the child's father....

...cause it was more reliable than an HLA test. Smatt filed a motion to dismiss alleging, among other things, that the issue had been litigated previously and was res judicata. In dismissing, the trial court stated: The court interprets Florida Statute 742.12(4) as indicated under case law as directory not mandatory language for the testing of an alleged father after the first blood test has shown that the alleged father is not the biological father of the minor child, upon a showing by the Petitio...

...The trial court was correct in entering a dismissal. DOR wanted a DNA test conducted because it was more accurate than the HLA test, but this is not a valid basis for the request under the statute. A party may move for a retest if the results are disputed. See § 742.12(4), Fla....

...Additionally, after evaluating the genetic markers, the laboratory wrote it was genetically impossible for Smatt to be the father of the child. DOR was also aware that if the test results showed that the alleged father could not be the biological father, the case "would be dismissed with prejudice." § 742.12(4), Fla....

...of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, for appellants. Steven L. Seliger, Quincy, for appellee. BOOTH, Judge. This cause is before us on appeal of an order in a proceeding under Chapter 742, Florida Statutes, holding that appellee was not the father of appellant's child. Section 742.12, Florida Statutes, adopted effective October 1, 1986, [1] admittedly applicable in the proceedings below, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The results of the Human Leukocyte Antigen tests or other scientific tests, together wit...

...He admitted giving appellant rides but claimed he did that for many people. He also admitted dropping off various items, but testified that these were normal deliveries from his store and that the items were either paid for or still owed for. The trial court recognized the presumption created by Section 742.12(1) but found that appellant's credibility was questionable and that appellant received a military allotment from the other man while he was in the service....

...[3] On these findings, the court ruled that appellee had rebutted the statutory presumption. We reverse since the trial court failed to give due weight to the statutory presumption of paternity on proof of HLA test results exceeding a 95-percent probability. Section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that where HLA test results of less than a 95-percent probability of paternity are introduced, the trial court shall weigh the test results with all other evidence....

...Valcin, 507 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1987). In the instant case, appellee failed to meet the burden of overcoming the presumption. Appellee did not demonstrate that the HLA test results were erroneous, did not avail himself of the procedures for retesting permitted under Section 742.12(2), Florida Statutes (1987), and did not submit evidence tending to prove that, for any reason (such as sterility or total lack of access), he could not have been the father. Absent such evidence, appellee's bare denial and testimony that someone other than appellee had sexual relations with the mother did not overcome the presumption established by the HLA test results and Section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...de a buccal swab sample for testing to determine the paternal relationship between Madelin and Doe. Madelin's motion indicates that she and her mother have already submitted a DNA sample for that purpose. In support of her motion, Madelin cited *136 section 742.12, Florida Statutes (2005), [3] which provides for scientific testing in actions to determine paternity. Adrian and Evelyn objected stating that the court was without authority to compel them to submit to DNA testing because section 742.12 provides for testing of only the mother, child, and alleged fathers, not the legitimate children of a deceased putative father....

...child born out of wedlock" to Doe. We believe something more is required, for example, an affidavit from Madelin's mother alleging paternity and setting forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the requisite sexual contact with Doe. See § 742.12(2) (requiring a sworn statement or declaration under penalty of perjury alleging paternity and setting forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the requisite sexual contact between the parties as a perquisite to obtaining an order for scientific testing)....

...r that question in the affirmative and grant the writ of certiorari. I agree with the majority that DNA testing is authorized for a determination of paternity for a person born out of wedlock under section 732.108(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). See § 742.12(1), Fla....

...Section 760.40 is entitled "Genetic testing; informed consent; confidentiality; penalties; notice of use of results." It provides in pertinent part as follows: (2)(a) Except for purposes of criminal prosecution, except for purposes of determining paternity as provided in s. 409.256 or s. 742.12(1), and except for purposes of acquiring specimens from persons convicted of certain offenses or as otherwise provided in s....

...Thus, the informed consent of the subject of DNA testing must be obtained prior to obtaining the DNA sample and conducting genetic testing or DNA typing unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. The only applicable exception in this case is the use of the DNA to determine paternity as provided in section 742.12(1). Section 742.12 is entitled "Scientific testing to determine paternity," and subsection (1) provides as follows: (1) In any proceeding to establish paternity, the court on its own motion may require the child, mother, and alleged fathers to submit to...

...other, and putative father to submit to DNA testing. Reading this statute in conjunction with section 760.40, a court is authorized to require such DNA testing on the child, mother and putative father without their informed consent. However, because section 742.12(1) does not authorize a court to require a putative sibling to submit to DNA testing, the prohibition against DNA testing without informed consent in section 760.40(2)(a) applies to putative siblings. In this case, the guardian for Madelin properly sought an adjudication of paternity pursuant to section 732.108(2)(b) after the decedent's death. While the circuit court was authorized by section 742.12(1) to order DNA testing of the child, the mother, and the putative father in order to make a paternity adjudication, it was not authorized to order DNA testing of others absent their informed consent as required by section 760.40(2)(a)....

...dual's mouth. [2] The names of the parties and the other persons mentioned in the caption and in the recitation of the facts of this case are fictitious. We use fictitious names in this opinion to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. [3] Section 742.12 provides in pertinent part: 742.12....

...to identify the presence and composition of genes in that person's body. The term includes DNA typing and genetic testing. (2)(a) Except for purposes of criminal prosecution, except for purposes of determining paternity as provided in s. 409.256 or s. 742.12(1), and except for purposes of acquiring specimens from persons convicted of certain offenses or as otherwise provided in s....

...es and even authorizes the use of reasonable force if necessary; section 943.325(13) provides for the results of DNA analysis performed under that section to be placed in a statewide database accessible by an assortment of criminal justice agencies; section 742.12(3), Florida Statutes provides that the results of tests ordered pursuant to that section be filed in the court file....

...iality for the results of genetic testing akin to the statutory confidentiality afforded to medical records. See Fla. S. Comm. on Judiciary, CS/SB 980 (1992) Staff Analysis (Feb. 28, 1992) (Fla. State Archives). [8] For example, section 760.40 omits section 742.12(2), which provides for court-ordered scientific testing at the request of a party in a paternity action and section 742.18, which provides for scientific testing to disestablish paternity....

...d born in 1987. In 1990, she filed an action to determine the paternity of appellee Sebastian Aguirre. In pursuit of that claim, Vasquez requested genetic testing on Aguirre, and in December 1990, the parties were ordered to undergo HLA testing. See § 742.12, Fla....

...The parties disagreed as to whether certain items had previously been provided or whether they were included in the request at all. Following hearing, the trial court granted the motion, excluded the test results, and denied Vasquez's motion for additional testing under section 742.12(4), Florida Statutes....

...ully be attacked, then both of the scientific opinions of paternity would fall. Vasquez proposed to meet Aguirre's attack on the validity of Roche's lab results by having a retest done by a second independent laboratory. Vasquez filed a motion under section 742.12(2), Florida Statutes (1995), for testing by a second laboratory. Aguirre opposed the motion and the trial court denied it. The court erred in doing so. Section 742.12(4) regulates scientific testing to determine paternity....

...s of the inherited characteristics is disputed, the court, upon reasonable request of a party, shall order that an additional test be made by the same laboratory or an independent laboratory at the expense of the party requesting additional testing. § 742.12(4), Fla....

...Since "an additional test" had been performed, id., the court concluded that it was without authority to order a second "additional test." The trial court erred in its ruling. It is incorrect to read the statute as imposing a categorical maximum of one additional blood test. Section 742.12(4) authorizes additional testing where there is a showing of good cause under the criteria set forth in the statute....

...HLA) at Roche Laboratories." The order for a redraw also specified that it was for "an additional HLA test." Aguirre contends that other scientific tests were performed besides HLA tests, and that such testing violated the court orders. We disagree. Section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1995), authorized the court to "require the child, mother, and alleged fathers to submit to Human Leukocyte Antigen tests or other scientific tests that are generally acceptable within the scientific community to show a probability of paternity. The court shall direct that the tests be conducted by a qualified technical laboratory." § 742.12(1), Fla....

...[6] "A statistical probability of paternity of 95 percent or more creates a rebuttable presumption ... that the alleged father is the biological father of the child.... If the test results show the alleged father cannot be the biological father, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice." Id. § 742.12(3)....

...The production requests were submitted to Vasquez, and Roche voluntarily honored the requests. [3] Aguirre also made various charges of wrongdoing by Roche and counsel for Vasquez. None is supported by the record. See also infra parts IV and V. [4] Subsection 742.12(2) provides: The test results, together with the opinions and conclusions of the test laboratory, shall be filed with the court....

...Upon the entry of the order for scientific testing, the court must inform each person to be tested of the procedure and requirements for objecting to the test results and of the consequences of the failure to object. [5] Technically, there had never been an "additional test" under section 742.12(4)....

...Roche needed to perform additional testing in order to be able to express an opinion on paternity. The trial court correctly ordered the additional testing so that Roche could complete its work. However, that additional testing was not ordered under section 742.12(4), which deals with additional testing where a party disputes the test results or expert analysis....

...See id. [6] This section has since been amended to eliminate the reference to HLA testing. The statute now directs the court to require "scientific tests that are generally acceptable within the scientific community to show a probability of paternity." § 742.12(1), Fla....

...On July 14, 2006, five years after the final judgment, Blocker filed two more motions, a motion for scientific paternity testing and a motion to set aside default. A hearing was held only on the motion for scientific paternity testing. In that motion, Blocker sought an order requiring scientific paternity testing pursuant to section 742.12, Florida Statutes (2006), stating, “[Ojther than testimony, very little or no substantial proof of paternity or nonpa-ternity is available in this action.” The trial court granted the motion, finding that Blocker denies knowledge of the service for the paternity action, has been requesting DNA testing since he learned of the final judgment, and “has been in the National Guard and was, from time to time during the course of these proceedings, on active duty overseas.” Section 742.12 states that “[i]n any proceeding to establish paternity, the court on its own motion may require the child, mother, and alleged fathers to submit to scientific tests ......

...determination that substitute service on Blocker’s mother was not proper. Thus, at the time of the hearing, there existed no open proceedings regarding paternity, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order scientific ■ testing pursuant to section 742.12....

...86 -220 (West) by the 1986 Florida legislature has rendered the rule challenge moot. Chapter 86-220 includes an amendment to § 409.2572, Fla. Stat., which codifies that part of the rule dealing with cooperation and noncooperation. The act also creates § 742.12, Fla.Stat., which establishes the definitive nature of scientific tests determining nonpa-ternity: “If the test results show the alleged father cannot be the biological father, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice." § 742.12(1)....

requesting Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) testing. See § 742.12, Fla.Stat. (1989). The trial court shall then

...We reverse this order establishing paternity on the authority of Ferguson v. Williams, 566 So.2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) and Dutilly v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 450 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), both of which hold that although HLA test results are admissible under section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1989), they must be properly authenticated and a proper predicate laid first....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 742.12, Fla.Stat....

...porary support is filed. DOR argues that, “[a]s a matter of law, on a motion for temporary child support pursuant to section 742.031(1), when a verified blood test provides clear and convincing evidence of paternity pursuant to section 742.031(1), section 742.12(4), and section 742.12(6), the court is simply awarding the mandatory temporary child support.” We disagree....

mother and the child) to submit to DNA tests. § 742.12(2), Fla. Stat. The failure to attach the documents

may not be the child’s father, arguing that section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes, mandated such tests in

...I, {choose only one} _____ Petitioner _____ Respondent certifies that the following information is true: 1. At this time, other than testimony, very little or no substantial proof of paternity or nonpaternity is available in this action. 2. I request, under section 742.12, Florida Statutes, that the Court enter an order for appropriate scientific testing of the biological samples of Petitioner and Respondent and the minor child(ren) listed below, so that a determination of paternity of the minor c...

response, Silva filed a motion pursuant to section 742.12, Florida Statutes (2014), requesting scientific

...her. Petitioner objected, noting that the Department’s petition failed to not contain a “sworn statement alleging paternity and setting forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the requisite sexual contact between the parties.... ” § 742.12(2), Fla....

...We grant the writ, concluding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the testing on the motion of the party without the sworn statement which is a statutory prerequisite. While the Department contends that under section 742.12(1) the court on its own motion can require an alleged father to submit to scientific tests, the court did not so act in this case. If we were to allow the testing to be ordered based on the Department’s motion without compliance with section 742.12(2), we would render that section meaningless....

...Orsini of Orsini Law Group, LLC, St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Jesse R. Butler of Dickinson & Gibbons, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee. KELLY, Judge. N.D. appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition to establish paternity. Because the trial court misapplied section 742.12(4), Florida Statutes (2020), to disestablish N.D.'s paternity, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. N.D....

...objected to the appointment of the guardian, but eventually stipulated to the appointment. Based on the guardian ad litem's recommendation, the trial court ordered the testing. The test results showed that there was no chance N.D. was R.R.D.'s biological father. The mother moved to dismiss N.D.'s paternity action pursuant to section 742.12(4), which provides that, in a proceeding to establish paternity, "[i]f the test results show the alleged father cannot be the biological father, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice." After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court voiced its reluctance to dismiss the petition, but ultimately stated, "My hands are tied. You know, 742.12 tells me I have to dismiss the case with prejudice based on the test results." The court granted the mother's motion and dismissed the petition. N.D. argues that the trial court erred in applying section 742.12(4) to remove his rights as R.R.D.'s legal father based "solely on biology." See Van Weelde v....

possibility” that the boyfriend was the baby’s father. § 742.12(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). Although not yet married

none of these bases in his answer. Further, section 742.12 only authorizes the trial court to order DNA

LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge. In this dissolution of marriage case we reverse the trial court’s refusal to grant the husband’s request for scientific paternity testing for which the husband agreed to pay. Section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that “[i]n any proceeding to establish paternity in law or in equity, the court ......

...de within the time specified in the pretrial order for the presentation of disputed issues; however, the child had not been born at that time, and the husband’s request was made within two weeks following the child’s birth. (3) She contends that section 742.12(1) is inapplicable to a dissolution of marriage proceeding; however, that section, as noted above, provides for such testing “[i]n any proceeding to establish paternity in law or in equity.” See Decker v....

...Hunter, 460 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (“If an alleged father has doubts concerning the paternity of a child born during the marriage, he should raise and resolve those doubts during the dissolution proceeding.”). (4) She contends that section 742.12(1) does not apply since the effective date of its foregoing mandatory testing provision (in which the word “shall” was substituted for the former word “may”) was October 1, 1989, and the wife’s counterpetition for dissolution...

blood tests to determine paternity, based on section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides:

...ion of sperm, eggs, and preembryos. See § 742.11 (establishing irrebuttable presumption that child born within wedlock conceived by artificial or in vitro insemination or by means of donated eggs or preembryos is the child of the husband and wife); § 742.12 (use of scientific testing to determine paternity); § 742.13 (definitions); § 742.14 (relinquishment of maternal or paternal rights by the donor of sperm, eggs, or preembryos); § 742.15 (contract required for surrogacy); § 742.16 (petit...

...se defenses, which to-date has not been heard by the trial court. Instead, the trial court elected to hear a motion filed by the donor requesting that the parties and the children first submit to scientific testing to determine paternity pursuant to section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...The three-count, joint amended petition sought disestablishment of paternity for Castillo pursuant to sections 742.10(4) and 742.18, Florida Statutes, and establishment of paternity for Coira as the biological father of LC. On October 24, 2019, Rodriguez filed a motion for partial summary judgment relying on sections 742.12(4), 742.18(11) and 742.10(4), Florida Statutes, as the bases for disestablishment of paternity for Castillo. Specifically, Rodriguez argued that summary judgment could be entered based on a material mistake of fact—specifically, that the...

...and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, our standard of review is de novo.” Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (citation omitted). III. DISCUSSION Rodriguez avers that sections 742.18(11), 742.12(4), and 742.10, Florida Statutes, support her petition to disestablish paternity....

...Rodriguez now asserts on appeal that a material mistake of fact— Coira’s purported infertility and the resultant belief that Castillo was LC’s biological father—supports her otherwise untimely challenge of paternity. Arguing that the DNA test results were admissible pursuant to section 742.12(4), Florida Statutes, Rodriguez avers that summary judgment was appropriate and that paternity should be disestablished for Castillo and established for Coira....

dismiss the paternity action with prejudice. Section 742.12(5), Fla. Stat. (1997), provides: Subject to

...important function that it served at common law: giving children born to intact marriages legal fathers without the need for any adjudication of the fact of fatherhood.” (citing G.F.C. v. S.G., 686 So. 2d 1382, 1384-85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997))). Pursuant to section 742.12(4), in any proceeding to establish paternity, “[i]f the test results show the alleged father cannot be the biological father, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice.” After being ruled out as the biological father of M.A.R.,...

...accurate. The trial court ordered additional blood testing but did not specify the type of test to be performed. Chapter 742, Florida Statutes (1991) sets forth the procedure to be followed to determine the paternity of a child born out of wedlock. Section 742.12(1) requires the child, mother and father to submit to Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) tests or other scientific tests that are generally acceptable....

...miss it with prejudice. If Darling was as adamant at the time of the original paternity proceeding as she is currently, that Wright is the father of the child, she could possibly have prevailed upon HRS to dispute the original HLA test results under section 742.12(2) and seek an additional test at that time by requesting the court to order one....

...g, we turn to the arguments advanced before the trial court and its reasons for ordering the testing, and find the latter to be insufficient. No evidence was presented at the hearing below. Instead, the trial court appears to have relied solely upon section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1989), which HRS argued is mandatory whenever any party to a paternity action requests HLA testing....

W. SHARP, J. Monts appeals from an order establishing his paternity of a minor child, S.L.W. He argues on appeal that the trial court failed to give him notice pursuant to section 742.12(3) concerning the procedure, the requirements of objecting to test results, and the consequences of failure to object....

...and the mother of the child. It later filed a motion to enforce the stipulation and for entry of a final judgment. A hearing was held on July 6, 1999, before a hearing officer. At the hearing the attorney for Monts objected, on the sole ground that section 742.12 required that upon entry of an order for scientific testing, each person must be informed of the procedure, requirements of objecting to the test results, and the consequences of failing to object....

...ure to object. With regard to the failure to advise Monts of his rights pursuant to the statute, it appears the hearing officer adjourned the hearing so that the parties could present case law on the issue of whether the Department had complied with section 742.12....

...An attempt was made to schedule a hearing later, leaving the parties to work out a time. This was not done. Subsequently, the hearing officer entered a recommended order on paternity, and the court approved and adopted the order. Based on this record, Monts failed to establish he had not been properly advised under section 742.12(3)....

...n on the issue of dissolution, this was the only matter noticed for the hearing, and the court should not have proceeded to resolve the issue of paternity. Furthermore, it does not appear that the court required the requested HLA test as directed by section 742.12(1), Florida Statutes....

...tion 742.10(4). Allison v. Medlock, 983 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Significantly, the record before this court does not reflect that respondent has filed a paternity action or otherwise placed paternity in controversy as provided by statute. See § 742.12(2), Fla....