In two decisions released on July 3, 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeal took a hard look at Florida’s paternity laws—and reached opposite outcomes. If you’re a family law practitioner (or a Florida dad with questions about paternity), the cases of Martinez v. Cuevas and Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Brown v. Gardner are must-reads.
Case #1: Martinez v. Cuevas — When DNA Does Matter
In Martinez, the Husband had a vasectomy years before the birth of one of the parties’ three children. When suspicions arose, he underwent DNA testing and learned that two of the three children born during the marriage weren’t biologically his.
He filed under Florida Statute § 742.18 to disestablish paternity based on newly discovered evidence—namely, the DNA test results. The trial court denied the request, reasoning that the vasectomy precluded relief as to the younger child, and that the DNA test wasn’t “new” evidence.
The Fifth DCA wasn’t having it.
The appellate court held that the vasectomy might explain the child born after the procedure, but it was irrelevant to the child born before it. More importantly, DNA results confirming lack of biological paternity are, by definition, newly discovered—especially when the father had been acting under the belief that he was the biological dad.
Takeaway: DNA still carries legal weight—but timing, statutory elements, and procedure all matter. The case was sent back down for the trial court to determine whether the remaining elements of § 742.18 were satisfied.
Case #2: Dep’t of Rev. v. Gardner — When Procedure Trumps DNA
In contrast, Gardner is a lesson in procedural pitfalls.
Mr. Gardner voluntarily signed a paternity acknowledgment. He didn’t revoke it within the statutory 60-day window. He didn’t file a proper petition to disestablish paternity either. Instead, he just moved for genetic testing. The trial court granted it.
Not so fast, said the Fifth DCA.
They quashed the order, explaining that without either rescinding the acknowledgment or filing a formal petition under § 742.18, the trial court had no authority to grant the test. Even if viewed as a discovery order, it was improper because there was no good cause shown for reopening the issue of paternity.
Takeaway: A voluntary acknowledgment is legally binding, and courts won’t let you sidestep the proper channels just because you’ve changed your mind or have doubts. If you want out, there’s a statute for that—and you have to follow it.
Bigger Picture: Biology Isn’t Everything—But It’s Not Nothing
These two cases illustrate the tension between biological truth and legal finality. Florida courts are willing to revisit paternity if the statutory requirements are met, but they won’t entertain backdoor attempts to unwind it without proper pleadings.
So whether you’re representing a dad who just got blindsided by DNA results, or you’re advising someone who signed a paternity acknowledgment years ago, these rulings offer a clear message:
Bring your facts, follow the statute, and don’t expect shortcuts.
And maybe—just maybe—think twice before signing that acknowledgment in the hospital delivery room.
Have questions about paternity, disestablishment, or DNA testing in Florida? Contact my office for a consult. I handle complex family law matters with a sharp eye for strategy—and a sense of humor when appropriate.