Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Paternity
In Florida, to disestablish paternity, one requirement is that a male present newly discovered evidence relating to the paternity of a child. If a male had a vasectomy before the child was conceived and was convinced by the mother of the child that vasectomies do not guarantee sterility - does this mean he cannot argue there was “newly discovered evidence” related to the paternity of the child if it is later determined through testing that the male is not the biological father of the child? This was an issue in the case Cuevas v. Cuevas, 5D2024-2832 (Fla. 5th DCA July 3, 2025).
During the parties’ marriage, the wife gave birth to three children in 2008, 2010 and 2015. The husband had a vasectomy in 2012 or 2013 and did not return to the doctor to confirm that it was successful. When the youngest child was born, the husband had doubts about paternity, but the wife convinced him that a vasectomy does not guarantee inability to conceive. After the divorce proceedings began, the husband conducted DNA testing on the children and learned that 2 of them were not biologically related to him. He then petitioned to disestablish paternity, citing the DNA tests as newly discovered evidence. The wife conceded that this was newly discovered evidence and she filed an amended counterpetition stating that only one of the children was common to the parties. The trial court denied the husband’s request to disestablish paternity, reasoning that the husband “having had a medical procedure to prohibit parentage knew or should have known of the likelihood of parentage.” The husband appealed.
The appellate court noted two defects in the trial court’s reasoning: “First, even if Husband’s 2012 or 2013 vasectomy foreclosed relief as to JMC—who was born in 2015—it is obviously irrelevant for MMC—who was born in 2008. Second, regardless of the vasectomy, Husband still made a showing of newly discovered evidence.” The court continued “Wife assured Husband that JMC was their child. Moreover, Husband satisfied Hooks’ demand for newly discovered evidence that is distinct from the scientific testing described in the statute. See 71 So. 3d at 911. He conducted an at-home test of JMC, the results of which caused him to secure professional testing of all three children. In turn, those results led to Wife conceding that he did not father JMC or MMC. Accordingly, under either view of the statute, the court should not have denied Husband’s claim based on his vasectomy.”
The court concluded “Husband met the requirements of section 742.18(1). As such, the court needed to complete the analysis in section 742.18(2). The face of the judgment shows the court did not finish that task. Instead, it denied Husband’s claim based on the first element—his purported failure to show newly discovered evidence—which it based entirely on his vasectomy. That conclusion was factually— as to MMC—and legally—as to MMC and JMC—incorrect. Because the court did not evaluate the other elements for relief, we reverse and remand for the court to finish that analysis. [internal citation omitted] If the court finds that Husband satisfied all the elements for disestablishing paternity, then it must grant relief. [internal citation omitted]. Relief would include all necessary revisions to the dissolution judgment.”
Schedule your appointment with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.