Background
At age 39, Rachael Lane petitioned for adult support from Ronald Cannon. Because Cannon’s paternity had never been established, Lane asked the circuit court to require him to undergo DNA testing.
Cannon objected, arguing that Florida’s limitations period for an action determining paternity had expired. The trial court nevertheless ordered testing, reasoning that an adult-support action may be filed at any time. Cannon petitioned the Fifth District for certiorari review.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District granted Cannon’s petition and quashed the testing order. It first held that it had certiorari jurisdiction because an erroneously compelled genetic test causes irreparable harm that cannot be corrected after the testing occurs.
The court then held that the order departed from the essential requirements of law. Section 61.1255(2)(c), Florida Statutes, permits a dependent adult child to seek support at any time, but it does not govern the establishment of paternity. Section 95.11(3)(a) separately requires an action relating to the determination of paternity to be filed within four years after the child reaches majority.
Although Lane could seek adult support at any time, the predicate determination of Cannon’s paternity remained subject to the four-year limitations period and had been time-barred for years. The court rejected Lane’s argument that no clearly established law controlled merely because no Florida court had previously interpreted the two statutes together, explaining that unambiguous statutes themselves can establish clearly established law.
Key Takeaways
- Florida’s statute allowing adult-support proceedings at any time does not eliminate the separate limitations period governing paternity determinations.
- When paternity has not previously been established, the four-year period following the child’s attainment of majority applies to the necessary paternity determination.
- An erroneous order compelling genetic testing creates irreparable harm sufficient for certiorari review because completed testing cannot be undone.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the timing of an adult-support claim from the timing of the paternity determination that may be necessary to support it. A claimant’s ability to pursue adult support without a time limit does not revive an already expired claim to establish paternity.
The opinion also confirms that clear statutory text may constitute clearly established law for certiorari purposes even when no appellate decision has previously addressed the precise interaction between the statutes involved.