## Facts

- Laytoya Quaintance gave birth to a child, and no father was initially listed on the birth certificate.
- Quaintance told Paul Hooks that he may or may not be the child’s biological father.
- Hooks did not seek genetic testing at the time.
- Despite the uncertainty, Hooks consented to being added to the birth certificate as the child’s father.
- Hooks and Quaintance married shortly after Hooks was listed as the father.
- The following year, the parties divorced.
- The dissolution judgment treated the child as a child of the marriage, and Hooks did not object to that determination.
- After the divorce, Hooks obtained DNA testing showing he was not the child’s biological father.
- Hooks filed a petition to disestablish paternity under section 742.18, Florida Statutes (2006), relying on the post-divorce DNA test.
- Quaintance moved to dismiss, arguing Hooks failed to allege the statute’s required “newly discovered evidence” because he knew from the outset that paternity was uncertain and could have sought testing earlier.
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the petition.
- Hooks sought review in the First District Court of Appeal by petition for writ of certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether DNA test results obtained after a paternity determination qualify as “newly discovered evidence” under section 742.18(1)(a) when the petitioner knew at the time paternity was established that he might not be the biological father but did not obtain testing.

## Decision

- The First District Court of Appeal granted certiorari review.
- The court denied relief and left the dismissal in place, concluding Hooks did not satisfy section 742.18’s “newly discovered evidence” requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Section 742.18 provides a limited statutory remedy, and a petitioner must plead the statute’s required elements, including “newly discovered evidence relating to the paternity of the child” learned after the initial paternity determination.
- “Newly discovered evidence” carries a due-diligence component: it is not “new” when the petitioner knew facts creating substantial doubt about paternity at the time of the original determination and could have obtained genetic testing earlier.
- A post-judgment DNA test is not “newly discovered evidence” for section 742.18 purposes when the petitioner’s own allegations show he accepted legal fatherhood while aware paternity was uncertain.
- Courts interpret the statute by its plain text and do not read out the “newly discovered evidence” requirement; allowing relief without that showing would make the statutory condition meaningless.
- Finality concerns support dismissal where a party seeks to reopen a settled paternity determination based on proof that could have been obtained before paternity was established.

## Conclusion

Because Hooks knew when he agreed to be listed as the father that he might not be the child’s biological parent and chose not to obtain testing until after divorce, the later DNA results were not “newly discovered evidence” under section 742.18, so his petition to disestablish paternity was properly dismissed.


Hooks v. Quaintance, 71 So. 3d 908 (2011)