of paternity exceeded the scope of the contempt proceeding, the trial court erred in vacating the order without notice that the issues would be heard. The second issue is whether the trial court even had jurisdiction to vacate a paternity order entered almost two years ago. This Court has held that “ ‘[ajbsent a showing of fraud upon the court, a paternity order is res judicata on the issue of paternity and re-litigation of paternity issues would be unauthorized in connection with a subsequently-filed motion for contempt for failure to pay court-ordered child support.’ ” Dep’t of Revenue v. Allen, 717 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (quoting Dep’t of Revenue v. Goulbourne, 648 So.2d 866, 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)); see also DeVaughn v. Dep’t of Revenue, 691 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (<HOLDING>). In this case, paternity was established by
holding that ajbsent fraud on the court the trial court did not have jurisdiction to set aside the 1982 judgment of paternity more than one year after its rendition holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict