Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Paternity
A DNA test can prove that a man is not the biological father of a child, but this will not necessarily cancel his status as the legal father of the child. Biological connection alone is not the determining factor of whether a man is declared the legal father of a child in Florida. This was an issue in the case Bauer v. Carlson, et. al., 5D2024-0447 (Fla. 5th DCA April 4, 2025).
The legal father of the child in this case filed a paternity petition alleging that he was listed as the child’s father on the birth certificate and that he and the mother signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. The mother responded by filing a verified motion disputing paternity and indicating another man was the biological father of the child. The trial court eventually made a finding that the legal father remained the legal father since there was a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity which had not been rescinded within 60 days per the applicable statute.
The biological father of the child moved to intervene in the action, alleging that a DNA test performed approximately one month after the legal father filed his paternity action indicated that the legal father could not be the father of the child because the intervening male was the biological father. The biological father also filed a petition to disestablish the legal father’s paternity. After a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the biological father’s motion to intervene without prejudice and denied his petition to disestablish paternity. The order rendered by the trial court, however, denied the motion to intervene with prejudice instead of without as orally pronounced at the hearing. The biological father appealed.
The appellate court affirmed, but reversed for the trial court to correct the “with prejudice” language in the order. It held “[P]aternity was established by law pursuant to the acknowledgment of paternity signed by Mother and [the legal father]. Also like in Bronner, [the legal father] petitioned to establish paternity and timesharing and the biological father [. . . ] sought to intervene. However, unlike in Bronner, neither Mother nor [the biological father] alleged fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact as to the acknowledgement of paternity. Accordingly, the court properly determined that [the biological father] did not have standing to challenge paternity where he failed to allege facts necessary to support a challenge to the execution of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. We therefore affirm the denial of the motion to intervene. However, we reverse that portion of the order denying the motion with prejudice because the court’s oral pronouncement differed from its written order. The oral pronouncement should control.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.