Enriquez v. Velazquez

350 So.3d 147

James ENRIQUEZ, Appellant,

v.Ashley VELAZQUEZ, Appellee.

Case No. 5D21-1542

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed November 3, 2022

William D. Palmer, Erin Pogue Newell, and Shannon McLin, of Florida Appeals, Orlando, for Appellant.

Chad A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, and Jamie Billotte Moses, of Holland & Knight LLP, Orlando, for Appellee.

Matthew E. Thatcher, of The Solomon Law Group, P.A., Tampa, Jennifer A. Patti, of Brodie & Friedman, P.A., Boca Raton, Christie Lou Mitchell, of The CLM Law Firm, Orlando, Jennifer L. Kipke, of Hesser & Kipke, Gainesville, Reuben A. Doupe and Sarah M. Oquendo, of Coleman, Hazzard, Taylor, Klaus, Doupe & Diaz, Naples, and Raymond S. Grimm, of Raymond S. Grimm, Esq, P.A., North Port, Amicus Curiae for Family Law Section of the Florida Bar, on behalf of Appellant.

LAMBERT, C.J.

The parties, James Enriquez and Ashley Velazquez ("Mother"), both unmarried, decided to have a child together. Though close friends, they were never in a romantic relationship with each other. Instead, they successfully conceived a child using an at-home artificial insemination process. The child is now seven years old.

Enriquez petitioned to establish paternity and to have timesharing with the minor child. Mother answered, agreeing that Enriquez is the child's natural or biological father and further acknowledging that a parenting plan should be ordered by the trial court, with an appropriate timesharing schedule. An interlocutory order was later entered in the case awarding Enriquez temporary timesharing with the child each week from Sunday morning through after school on Wednesday, with the trial court also noting in its order that "the parties stipulate to [Enriquez's] paternity [of the minor child]."

Approximately eighteen months after this order, trial was held on Enriquez's petition. The parties stipulated that the issues to be resolved by the court at trial were: (1) the amount of timesharing that each party would have with the child, (2) their resulting child support obligations, (3) which party's address would be used for purposes of a "school designation," and (4) who would claim the child as a tax exemption for federal income tax purposes.

Both parties testified at trial. In its final judgment, the trial court acknowledged that Mother had no objection to Enriquez having timesharing with the child, specifically finding, among other things, that Mother intended Enriquez to "be a constant figure in the child's life." The court found that since the interlocutory order awarding him temporary timesharing, Enriquez had, in fact, been a "constant presence in the child's life," with the child knowing him as "Dad."

The court also found that "[b]y all accounts, the statutory factors under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes related to developing a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule, for the most part, favor both parties equally." In that regard, the court stated that the parties: (1) appeared to put the child's interests ahead of their own, (2) were flexible regarding their exercising of timesharing with the child so far, and (3) were informed as to the child's education, interests, and medical needs. The court summed up that "both parties love and care for the child deeply and have been able to set most of their differences, which are few, aside for the child's best interests."

Despite these favorable findings, Enriquez received no timesharing with the child in the final judgment. Instead, on an issue never raised by Mother, the court, on its own initiative, concluded that section 742.14, Florida Statutes (2020), which it referred to as Florida's "assisted reproductive technology" statute, precluded it from granting Enriquez relief; and it "denied and dismissed" his petition for paternity with prejudice. Following the summary denial of Enriquez's motion for rehearing, this timely appeal ensued.

Enriquez raises three arguments here for reversal. He first contends that he was denied procedural due process when, following the parties’ presentation of evidence and just prior to closing argument, the trial court raised the issue of whether section 742.14 precluded his claim of paternity. Enriquez argues that due to this sua sponte action of the trial court, he was unable to adequately prepare for and respond to what became the dispositive issue in the case. Second, Enriquez asserts that, based on the undisputed facts in this case, the trial court erred in applying section 742.14 to deny his petition. Third, Enriquez alternatively argues that section 742.14 is unconstitutional "as applied."

For the following reasons, we agree with Enriquez that the trial court committed reversible error in essentially ruling, as a matter of law, that section 742.14 applies to the facts of this case to bar his claim of paternity.¹

ANALYSIS—

This appeal presents a question of law and statutory construction. Our review is de novo. See Townsend v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 192 So. 3d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2016) (citing Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health , 898 So. 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005) ). To begin this review, we first look to the language of the statute, which, since its inception, has substantively read:

The donor of any egg, sperm, or preembryo, other than the commissioning couple or a father who has executed a preplanned adoption agreement under s. 63.213, shall relinquish all maternal or paternal rights and obligations with respect to the donation or the resulting children. Only reasonable compensation directly related to the donation of eggs, sperm, and preembryos shall be permitted.

§ 742.14, Fla. Stat.

By this statute, "the Legislature articulated a policy of treating all individuals who provide eggs, sperm, or preembryos as part of assisted reproductive technology as ‘donor[s]’ bound by the terms of the statute, and then exempting two specific groups in accordance with the purpose behind the statutory enactment." D.M.T. v. T.M.H. , 129 So. 3d 320, 333 (Fla. 2013).

Addressing Enriquez's paternity action, the trial court analyzed whether Enriquez fell within either of the two recognized groups exempt from section 742.14 ’s directive that a sperm donor otherwise relinquishes all paternal rights to a child born from their donation. It first observed, correctly, that Enriquez had not executed a preplanned adoption agreement under section 63.213, Florida Statutes ; thus, he was not within that exempt group.

The court then turned to whether Enriquez and Mother were a "commissioning couple" who had used "assisted reproductive technology" in the conception of the child. The court acknowledged that a "commissioning couple" was defined in section 742.13(2), Florida Statutes (2020), as the "intended mother and father of a child who will be conceived by means of assisted reproductive technology using the eggs or sperm of at least one of the intended parents." (Emphasis supplied by the trial court). It then related the definition of "assisted reproductive technology," which provides, in full:

"Assisted reproductive technology" means those procreative procedures which involve the laboratory handling of human eggs or preembryos, including, but not limited to, in vitro fertilization embryo transfer, gamete intrafallopian transfer, pronuclear stage transfer, tubal embryo transfer, and zygote intrafallopian transfer.

See § 742.13(1), Fla. Stat.

Applying these statutory definitions from section 742.13, which the trial court acknowledged under D.M.T. are to be read in pari materia with section 742.14,² the court, quite correctly, reached what it referred to as a "legal conclusion" that the parties' "at-home, do-it-yourself method of artificial insemination" did not involve the "laboratory handling of human eggs or preembryos."

At this point, the trial court had seemingly reasoned that because there was no laboratory handling of human eggs or preembryos, the child was not born through the use of "assisted reproductive technology," as that term is defined in section 742.13(1). However, it then concluded that this "does not change the fact that [Enriquez] is a sperm donor under section 742.14" and, as such, "[Enriquez] does not have parental rights to a child resulting from that donation."³

We disagree with the trial court's ultimate conclusion. For the following reasons, we hold that section 742.14 applies to paternity actions only when the child was born as a result of assisted reproductive technology, which did not occur here.

Our dissenting colleague characterizes as misguided our conclusion that section 742.14 applies only when "assisted reproductive technology" is used, as that term is defined in section 742.13(1), asserting that we have improperly considered the Legislature's intent rather than just applying "the plain language of the statutory text." However, as also observed by the dissent, the Florida Supreme Court in D.M.T. considered the Legislature's intent in enacting section 742.14, and it likewise concluded that the Legislature intended that the statute apply only when assisted reproductive technology is used.

In that case, the supreme court referred to section 742.14 as the "assisted reproductive technology statute" eleven times⁴ ; and, as quoted supra , the supreme court explicitly held that in enacting section 742.14, "the Legislature articulated a policy of treating all individuals who provide eggs, sperm, or preembryos as part of assisted reproductive technology as ‘donor[s]’ bound by the terms of the statute." D.M.T. , 129 So. 3d at 333 (emphasis added). Even the dissenting opinion in D.M.T. , written by then-Chief Justice Polston, referred to section 742.14 as the "assisted reproductive technology statute" three times; and it concluded that "[t]he purpose of this statute is to define the rights of parties who use assisted reproductive technology to conceive and to thereby provide certainty and stability for parents and children." D.M.T. , 129 So. 3d at 353 (Polston, C.J.,...