Case Name: Robbie LEFLER, Appellant, v. Christine LEFLER and Edward Church, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-12-30
Citations: 722 So. 2d 941
Docket Number: No. 97-4077
Parties: Robbie LEFLER, Appellant, v. Christine LEFLER and Edward Church, Appellees.
Judges: GROSS, J., and BAILEY, JENNIFER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 722
Pages: 941–944

Head Matter:
Robbie LEFLER, Appellant, v. Christine LEFLER and Edward Church, Appellees.
No. 97-4077.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 30, 1998.
Howard K. Heims, and Virginia P. Sherlock of Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.
Ileana Haedo of Law Offices of Anthony B. Borras, P.A., Lauderhill, for appellee Christine Lefler.
Brion Blackwelder of Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, for Guardian Ad Litem.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In the court below, appellant filed a petition to modify a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, seeking to establish that he is not the biological father of a child born during the marriage. Part of the petition is a paternity action which prays for the relief that Edward Church be "declared the biological and legal father" of the child.
We reverse the trial court's order denying a blood test. See Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997); Gantt v. Gantt, 716 So.2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
We affirm the trial court's dismissal of Edward Church as a party to this proceeding. Under section 742.011, Florida Statutes (1997), appellant does not have standing to initiate a paternity action; he is neither a "woman who is pregnant or has a child," nor "any man who has reason to believe that he is the father of a child." Id, Nor is appellant acting on behalf of the child in this action. Church is not a proper party to the post-judgment proceedings in this dissolution action.
As the trial court noted, the relief requested in the petition is perplexing and fraught with difficult social issues. This opinion does not address the propriety of any relief and is limited to the two narrow issues discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
GROSS, J., and BAILEY, JENNIFER D., Associate Judge, concur.
KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.