5D12-1239 Hickman v. Milsap

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D12-1239

Case Date: 02/04/2013

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ANDREW JOSEPH HICKMAN, Appellant, v. TASHA MONAE MILSAP, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 8, 2013 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Mark J. Hill, Judge. Charles D. Fantl, Tavares, for Appellant. David E. Cauthen, of Cauthen, Oldham & Associates, P.A., Tavares, for Appellee. Case No. 5D12-1239

ORFINGER, C.J. Andrew J. Hickman appeals the trial court's order granting his petition to disestablish paternity of A.J.H., the minor child of Appellee, Tasha Milsap. We affirm. Mr. Hickman and Ms. Milsap were never married to each other. Ms. Milsap gave birth to A.J.H. in 2001, and both parties executed his birth certificate, declaring themselves his natural parents. In May 2005, Ms. Milsap brought a paternity action against Mr. Hickman resulting in a paternity judgment that found Mr. Hickman was

A.J.H.'s father. By separate order, Mr. Hickman was ordered to pay $751 in monthly ongoing child support and $49 monthly toward the $20,277 in child support arrearages. In early 2011, DNA test results revealed that Mr. Hickman was not A.J.H.'s biological father. As a result, pursuant to section 742.18, Florida Statutes (2011), Mr. Hickman filed a petition to disestablish paternity. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Mr. Hickman's petition and entered an order disestablishing his paternity and terminating his ongoing child support obligation, but continuing to hold him responsible for the previously determined support arrearage. On appeal, Mr. Hickman contends that the trial court erred by concluding that under section 742.18, Florida Statutes, he remains responsible for previously adjudicated child support arrearages. Enacted in 2006, section 742.18 created a new cause of action for disestablishing paternity. In relevant part, that statute provides: relief shall be limited to the issues of prospective child support payments and termination of parental rights, custody, and visitation rights. The male's previous status as father continues to be in existence until the order granting relief is rendered. All previous lawful actions taken based on reliance on that status are confirmed retroactively but not prospectively. This section shall not be construed to create a cause of action to recover child support that was previously paid.

Download 5D12-1239 Hickman v. Milsap.pdf