B.W.P. v. A.L.H.
Docket: Nos. 2D13-4919, 2D13-5653
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 22, 2015; Florida; State Appellate Court
B.W.P., a sperm donor, appealed an order that dismissed his amended petition to determine paternity with prejudice and an order awarding attorney’s fees to A.L.H., the mother. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of B.W.P.'s petition, affirming that even without a valid written contract limiting his parental rights, section 742.14 of the Florida Statutes prohibits him from asserting such rights. This aligns with the precedent set in *Lamaritata v. Lucas*. However, the court found that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to A.L.H. under section 57.105. The trial court had determined that B.W.P. should have known his petitions were insufficient, but section 57.105(3) protects claims presented in good faith, especially if they involve novel legal questions. The court emphasized that Florida law encourages access to the courts and that attorney's fees should only be awarded if a claim is entirely untenable. B.W.P. was attempting to present a novel legal argument regarding the constitutionality of section 742.14, referencing *D.M.T. v. T.M.H.* which challenged the statute's constitutionality. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the amended petition but reversed the award of attorney’s fees. The ruling was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Judges Khouzam and Morris concurred. It was noted that B.W.P. and A.L.H. had agreed to artificial insemination without using a fertility clinic.