Filed: Sep. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOSEPH BRYAN FLYNN, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D15-5802 AMBER MCCRANEY AND CHRISTOPHER MCCRANEY, Appellees. _/ Opinion filed September 19, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jan Shackelford, Judge. Autumn O. Beck, Pensacola, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Joseph Bryan Flynn appeals the trial cour
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOSEPH BRYAN FLYNN, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D15-5802 AMBER MCCRANEY AND CHRISTOPHER MCCRANEY, Appellees. _/ Opinion filed September 19, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jan Shackelford, Judge. Autumn O. Beck, Pensacola, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Joseph Bryan Flynn appeals the trial court..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
JOSEPH BRYAN FLYNN, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D15-5802
AMBER MCCRANEY AND
CHRISTOPHER MCCRANEY,
Appellees.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed September 19, 2016.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
Jan Shackelford, Judge.
Autumn O. Beck, Pensacola, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Bryan Flynn appeals the trial court’s final order adopting the general
magistrate’s Report and Recommendation dismissing Flynn’s petition seeking to
establish paternity, time-sharing, and other related relief. Because the minor child
was born to the intact marriage of Amber and Christopher McCraney, we affirm the
final order in all respects. See Slowinski v. Sweeney,
64 So. 3d 128, 128-29 (Fla.
1st DCA 2011) (holding that a child born to an intact marriage cannot be the subject
of a paternity proceeding brought by a biological father and determining it was
fundamental error for the trial court to grant relief pursuant to a nonexistent cause of
action); see also Sirdevan v. Strand,
120 So. 3d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), rev.
denied,
147 So. 3d 527 (Fla. 2014) (table).
AFFIRMED.
WINOKUR, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
2