Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 31, 2002; Florida; State Appellate Court
P.C. appeals his dismissal from a dependency case, which the court based on Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Privette, 617 So.2d 305 (Fla.1993). The dismissal is reversed, as Privette does not apply here. The Department of Children and Family Services initiated the case after sheltering the child at birth, following the removal of the child’s two older siblings. Although P.C. was married to the mother at the time of birth, the biological father had drowned months earlier. P.C. is listed as the father on the birth certificate and is therefore the legal father, despite being incarcerated and having no contact with the child after birth.
The court erred in conducting a Privette hearing aimed at determining the child's best interests regarding the legitimacy of the marriage between P.C. and the mother. The Department clarified that its presence was solely for the dependency hearing, not for assessing legal versus biological paternity. Privette established that the presumption of legitimacy protects the child's welfare, affirming the right of children born legitimate to maintain that status if it serves their best interests. The legal father's interest in preserving the relationship with the child is also emphasized, particularly if he actively participates in the child's care.
In cases where paternity is contested, courts may apply equitable estoppel to prevent disputes over paternity if the parties previously acknowledged the legal father's status. The decision in Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997), clarifies that Privette is limited to situations involving contested paternity and threats to the legal father's rights. The court concluded that the dismissal was improper and highlighted the importance of maintaining the legal father’s status and rights.
No Privette hearing was warranted in this case, as the child was not at risk of being declared illegitimate, a concern that only arose due to the hearing itself. The legal father, P.C., seeks to retain his parental rights, and there are no competing claims to fatherhood that challenge his status. Both the mother and her family support P.C.’s legal claim. This situation is contrasted with S.B. v. D.H., where a putative biological father could not pursue paternity due to objections from the child's married parents. The court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court raised concerns about the implications of delegitimizing the child, noting that such a finding would preclude a trial against P.C., leaving only the mother to face any legal consequences. The court emphasized the importance of due process rights, stating that no individual should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor should they face double jeopardy.
