Otherwise, the biological father would not have legal standing to bring a paternity action if the child was born during an intact marriage, even if he proves he is the biological father, if the Husband chooses to accept paternity.
However, in some cases, the Husband may not want to accept paternity. In such a case, if he discovers new evidence that he is not the legal father, such as a loveletter from the biological father mentioning a sexual affair with the wife, then he may take legal action to disestablish paternity. However, if after discovering this new evidence, he takes certain actions towards caring for the child, as otherwise described more fully in the statute, he may waive his right to disestablish paternity. This also goes for cases in which an unmarried biological father first accepts paternity, and the discovers new evidence that he may not be the father as well.
If you have a suspicion that you may not be the father of the child, speak now or forever hold your peace. Because if you have the suspicion now, and then you seek to legitimize the child, or accept paternity, you cannot claim later that your suspicion is newly discovered evidence. I represented a Mother in just such a case. The Father knew when they were dating that she may not have been the child's father. But he wasn't sure. He decided it really didn't matter to him, and he married the Mother, and then added his name to the child's birth certificate.
When the Mother then later sought child support from him, he got a DNA test, and sought legal relief in the form of a Petition to Disestablish Paternity pursuant to -section 742.18 Fla. Stats. I filed Motion to Dismiss on behalf of the Mother alleging primarily that he did not have newly discovered evidence, and that in any event, he took actions to care for the child after knowing he might not have been the Father, and by so doing prevented the biological father from asserting his paternal rights. The Trial Court granted my Motion to Dismiss, and the Father was forced to pay child support for the child. The Father appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, and the Trial Court's ruling was upheld. Now as a result of his actions, he must pay child support for a child who is not his biologically. See Quaintance v. Hooks, 71 So.3d 908 (Fla 1st DCA 2011).
At Gerald Wilkerson Law, we can advise you of the appropriate steps to take whether you are the Father, or the Mother in cases such as these.