Case Name: Javier FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Michael Scott McKENNEY, et al., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-02-09
Citations: 776 So. 2d 1118
Docket Number: No. 5D99-1476
Parties: Javier FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Michael Scott McKENNEY, et al., Appellee.
Judges: GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 776
Pages: 1118–1123

Head Matter:
Javier FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Michael Scott McKENNEY, et al., Appellee.
No. 5D99-1476.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 9, 2001.
Barbara Nolte of Giles & Robinson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Jerri A. Blair of Jerri A. Blair, P.A., Tavares, for Appellee.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, C.J.
Javier Fernandez appeals a final summary judgment ruling that Michael McKenney is the natural and legal father of two children conceived and born when Fernandez was married to Patricia McKenney, the mother of the children. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and must draw every reasonable inference in favor of the party against whom the motion is made. Destiny Const. Co. v. Martin K. Eby Const., 662 So.2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Read in the light most favorable to Fernandez, the record shows that through her acts of deception, Patricia McKenney was able to maintain relationships with both Fernán- dez and Michael McKenney during her marriage to Fernandez. Patricia McKen-ney deceived Fernandez into thinking the children were his biological children, and Michael McKenney not only acquiesced in the deception, he actively assisted in it.
Approximately a year after the birth of the second child, Patricia McKenney decided she wanted a divorce. She and Fernandez entered a settlement agreement. The stipulated final judgment stated that there were two children born of the marriage. It ordered Fernandez to pay child support and awarded him visitation. A reasonable view of the record is that Patricia McKen-ney continued to deceive Fernandez well after the divorce, and led him to believe that a reconciliation might be possible. Further, reading the record in the light most favorable to Fernandez, his visitation with the children became less and less frequent, not because of a lack of interest on his part, but because he was inconvenient to Patricia McKenney. Similarly, the record supports the inference that Fernandez, aware that their joint checking account was still available to Patricia McKenney, stopped giving Patricia McKenney child support checks at her behest when she explained that the business she acquired as a result of the dissolution was doing so well she no longer needed the checks.
In contrast to the above view of the record, the final judgment, which suffers the deficiency of overreaching that often obtains when counsel draft final judgments, erroneously fails to read the record in the light most favorable to the moving party, and renders factual determinations regarding contested matters. Based on Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Privette, 617 So.2d 305 (Fla.1993) and Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997), we conclude that this matter must be remanded for a determination of whether there is a clear and compelling reason why the children's best interests would be served by overcoming the presumption that Fernandez is their father. Although the summary judgment to an extent purports to be based on a best interests determination, because it is a summary judgment there are no legitimate findings of fact in it. Further, there is practically nothing in the record about the relationship between Michael McKenney and the children. All that is shown is that he was apparently willing to trick Fernandez into thinking that the children were his, and to allow some kind of a bond to develop between his biological children and Fernandez. Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed for a determination of the best interests of the children based on the actual facts. On remand the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
SHARP, W., J., concurs specially with opinion.