## Facts

- Donneshia Chambers and Terrell Travis had a child.
- Two days after the child’s birth, Chambers and Travis signed a paternity affidavit stating that Travis was the child’s biological father.
- The paternity affidavit was notarized.
- Nearly three years later, the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR), acting on Chambers’s behalf, filed a petition in the trial court seeking a child-support order and related relief against Travis.
- Before a child-support order was entered, Travis asked the trial court to require genetic (DNA) testing because he wanted confirmation that he was the child’s biological father before being ordered to pay support.
- Over DOR’s objection, the trial court ordered DNA testing to determine paternity.
- DOR moved to vacate the DNA-testing order, and the trial court denied the motion.
- DOR sought appellate review of the trial court’s refusal to vacate the order compelling DNA testing.

## Issues

1. May a trial court order DNA testing to determine paternity in a child-support proceeding when the parties previously executed a notarized paternity affidavit acknowledging the alleged father as the child’s biological father?
2. Does a father’s request for confirmation of biological paternity, without a recognized basis to invalidate the acknowledgment, justify reopening paternity through genetic testing?

## Decision

- The appellate court ruled in favor of DOR.
- The court held that the notarized paternity affidavit operated as an effective legal acknowledgment of paternity.
- The court determined that the trial court erred by ordering DNA testing based only on Travis’s desire to confirm paternity before paying child support.
- The appellate court set aside the trial court’s order requiring genetic testing and directed that the support proceedings move forward based on the existing acknowledgment of paternity.

## Legal Principles

- A properly executed, notarized paternity affidavit has binding legal effect and establishes paternity for purposes of child-support proceedings.
- A trial court may not reopen paternity and compel genetic testing simply because an acknowledged father later wants biological confirmation.
- Genetic testing aimed at relitigating paternity is improper unless the acknowledgment is first challenged on legally recognized grounds and through the proper procedure.
- Child-support enforcement may proceed based on a valid paternity acknowledgment, and courts should not order testing that would function as an unauthorized paternity contest.

## Conclusion

The court held that Travis’s notarized paternity affidavit established legal paternity, and the trial court therefore lacked a proper basis to compel DNA testing merely because Travis later sought reassurance before paying support; the order requiring genetic testing was set aside so the case could proceed on the existing acknowledgment.


State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Chambers v. Travis, 971 So.2d 157 (2007)