Case Name: Arthur DeRICO, Appellant, v. Connie WILSON f/k/a Connie DeRico, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-07-24
Citations: 714 So. 2d 623
Docket Number: No. 97-2903
Parties: Arthur DeRICO, Appellant, v. Connie WILSON f/k/a Connie DeRico, Appellee.
Judges: PETERSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 714
Pages: 623–626

Head Matter:
Arthur DeRICO, Appellant, v. Connie WILSON f/k/a Connie DeRico, Appellee.
No. 97-2903.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 24, 1998.
Aubin Wade Robinson of The Paige Law Firm, Belle Glade, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.

Opinion:
GOSHORN, Judge.
Arthur DeRico appeals the order on his petition for modification of the dissolution judgment. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ms petition to terminate Ms paternity and child support obligation as it pertains to two of the three children born during the marriage. We agree and reverse.
Three children were born during the parties' marriage: Arthur, Jr. (9/30/88), Travis (5/5/90) and Nya (11/27/92). DeRieo states the parties separated immediately following Nya's birth. The final dissolution judgment, entered May 9, 1994, ordered DeRieo to pay $943.00 per month in child support for support of the three children.
In January 1996, a DNA parentage test was performed as to Nya per the agreement of the parties. Test results showed a 0.0% chance DeRieo was Nya's biological father. In April 1996, a blood test of Travis rendered the same conclusion. Based on these results, DeRieo moved the trial court for a determination that he is not the legal father of either child and asked the court to terminate Ms child support obligation as to these two children.
The trial court concluded that it was in the children's best interest that they remain legitimate and demed DeRico's petition, ruling the case was controlled by the holding in Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Privette, 617 So.2d 305 (Fla.1993) that once children are born legitimate, children have a right to maintain that status both factually and legally if that is in their best interest. The trial court did not have the benefit of Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997) when it made its decision.
In Daniel, the parties stipulated that Mr. Darnel was not the child's natural father although he was married to the child's mother at the time of the child's birth. The trial court ordered Mr. Darnel to pay support because Mr. DaMel was better able to support the child than was the biological father. The district court reversed the support award, finding that because Mr. Daniel was not the biological father and was not asserting any parental rights, and because the child was not threatened with illegitimacy, Privette did not control. The supreme court affirmed, reiterating the rule that "a person has no legal duty to provide support for a minor child who is neither his natural nor his adopted child and for whose care and support he has not contracted." Id. at 1254 (citations omitted).
In the instant case, there is no issue as to patermty, DeRieo is not claiming any rights as "legal father" of the two children, and, as in Daniel, the children's status as legitimate is not subject to dispute. Accordingly, Privette does not govern this case; Daniel does. There is no need for the appointment of a guardian ad litem as DeRieo has no legal duty to provide support for children he neither biologically fathered, adopted, nor contracted to care for.
DeRieo also sought repayment of the sums already paid in child support. Repayment of all monies paid since the date DeRieo petitioned to have his patermty and support obligation terminated, September 17,1996, is appropriate because the support payments made after the filing of the petition were conditional on the court's determination of DeRico's petition. Once DeRieo successfully rebutted the presumption of his legal paternity, the finding of non-paterMty is retroactive to the date the petition was filed. As to payments made from the date child support was originally ordered to the date the petition was filed, repayment should not be ordered. The presumption of patermty was in effect and unchallenged for those 28 months.
Upon remand, a hearing will have to be held to determine the amount the former wife will have to repay and to set the amount of support DeRieo should pay for his one biological child. The order should determine DeRico's non-paternity as to Travis and Nya and require the former wife to repay the sums received for Travis and Nya's support since September 17,1996.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
HARRIS, J., dissents, with opmion.