D.F.H. v. J.D.G. and D.A.G.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/19/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2120220 D.F.H. v. J.D.G. and D.A.G. Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t (DR-12-900197) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . J.D.G. divorce the ("the husband") f r o m D.A.G. husband a l l e g e d filed ("the w i f e " ) . that s i n c e 1996 and t h a t a c h i l d a complaint In h i s divorce he a n d t h e w i f e seeking a complaint, h a d been married ("the c h i l d " ) h a d b e e n b o r n o f t h e 2120220 marriage i n 2008. informed him child. that DNA paternity ordered that DNA he husband was alleged that the wife not the b i o l o g i c a l father had of the The h u s b a n d s o u g h t a d i v o r c e on t h e g r o u n d o f a d u l t e r y and, among o t h e r a The t h i n g s , requested that the t r i a l test. the w i f e , On June 25, t h e husband, order the t r i a l 2012, court court and t h e c h i l d submit to paternity testing. After conducting a pendente 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d lite court on a pendente l i t e order t o f i n a n c i a l and c u s t o d y i s s u e s w h i l e pending. hearing, found that, the divorce although DNA 16, pertaining action I n a d d i t i o n , i n t h a t J u l y 16, 2012, o r d e r , specifically July was the t r i a l testing had r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was n o t t h e b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d , t h e h u s b a n d was " p e r s i s t i n g i n h i s s t a t u s as t h e l e g a l f a t h e r , and, t h e r e f o r e , u n d e r § 26-17-607, A l a . Code 1975, he remains the o n l y l e g a l f a t h e r of t h i s On J u l y 17, 2012, t h e w i f e the child." f i l e d a "motion t o J u l y 16, 2012, p e n d e n t e l i t e order. reconsider" In that motion, the w i f e a r g u e d t h a t , b e c a u s e he h a d s o u g h t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the p a t e r n i t y o f t h e c h i l d , t h e h u s b a n d c o u l d no l o n g e r p e r s i s t i n his c l a i m t h a t he i s t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r . 2 On J u l y 18, 2012, 2120220 the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d reconsider," an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e w i f e ' s " m o t i o n t o concluding t h a t t h e husband's s e e k i n g paternity t e s t i n g was n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p e r s i s t i n g i n h i s s t a t u s as the child's also served legal trial that the p a t e r n i t y as e v i d e n c e on t h e i s s u e o f t h e w i f e ' s Thereafter, seeking f a t h e r and n o t i n g the wife a divorce. court filed The w i f e granted, an a n s w e r a n d a also requesting filed that test adultery. counterclaim a motion, which the a g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m be appointed f o rthe c h i l d . On November 9, 2012, D.F.H. intervene i n the divorce husband. In h i s motion, biological father the between alleged a n d he s o u g h t husband had p l a c e d seeking the wife that and t h e he the wife i s the and t h e D.F.H. a l l e g e d D.F.H. argued, the issue of the child's p a t e r n i t y 3 that D.F.H. was t h e b i o l o g i c a l and, t h e r e f o r e , court. to an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f h i s In h i s motion t o i n t e r v e n e , of the c h i l d , a motion born while husband had acknowledged t h a t father the D.F.H. of the c h i l d h u s b a n d were m a r r i e d , paternity. action filed the before 2120220 The husband objected to D.F.H.'s m o t i o n to intervene, c o n t e n d i n g t h a t he " v i g o r o u s l y p e r s i s t s i n h i s s t a t u s as legal f a t h e r " of the On November 12, which i t denied the child. 2012, the t r i a l court entered D.F.H.'s m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e . an o r d e r In that in order, the t r i a l c o u r t again determined t h a t the husband p e r s i s t e d i n his status as the child's legal f a t h e r and that, therefore, u n d e r § 26-17-607, no o t h e r p e r s o n c o u l d s e e k t o d i s p r o v e husband's court p a t e r n i t y of the child. In addition, the the trial stated: "The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t [ t h e husband] i s the f a t h e r of the c h i l d born of h i s m a r r i a g e i s among t h e w e i g h t i e s t o f p r e s u m p t i o n s i n t h e l a w , and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n [ t h e c h i l d and t h e h u s b a n d ] as d a u g h t e r and f a t h e r s h o u l d n o t be overcome e v e n i f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f [ D . F . H . ] a r e t r u e . [ D . F . H . ] assumed t h e r i s k t h a t t h i s very circumstance w o u l d o c c u r when he e n t e r e d i n t o a sexual relationship with [the wife]. While [D.F.H.'s] consequences are s u b s t a n t i a l , the c o u r t does n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o o v e r t u r n t h e l o n g ¬ standing law in the area law which protects innocent c h i l d r e n from the m i s t a k e s of a d u l t s . " On November 19, 2012, a motion asking visitation. interviewed The the the the c h i l d ' s guardian trial court guardian child ad after to litem the 4 suspend stated child had ad l i t e m f i l e d the husband's that he had made certain 2120220 statements husband. about bathing with and s l e e p i n g B a s e d on t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n , naked with the the guardian ad l i t e m b e l i e v e d t h a t an i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h o u l d be made i n t o t h e c h i l d ' s statements. The trial guardian day, court conducted an e m e r g e n c y h e a r i n g a d l i t e m ' s m o t i o n on November 20, 2012. the t r i a l court entered on t h e T h a t same an o r d e r i n w h i c h i t t e m p o r a r i l y s u s p e n d e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d p e n d i n g an i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR") a n d another child-services order, the trial court [husband], t h e [ w i f e ] , discuss I n i t s November specifically ordered 20, 2012, that "the [D.F.H.], a n d t h e i r f a m i l i e s a r e n o t t o [the c o n c e r n s r a i s e d by t h e w i f e and t h e g u a r d i a n litem regarding trial agency. court then investigation c o n c e r n s be t h e husband's conduct] w i t h t h e c h i l d . " into stated that the guardian i t had ordered ad l i t e m ' s that ad The the and t h e w i f e ' s expedited. On November 24, 2012, D.F.H. f i l e d a motion asking the t r i a l c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s November 12, 2012, d e n i a l o f h i s motion t o intervene. The t r i a l December 3, 2012. 5 court denied t h a t m o t i o n on 2120220 D.F.H. arguing filed a notice that the t r i a l of appeal i n t e r v e n e and t h a t t h e t r i a l to due p r o c e s s court had v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t i n e n t e r i n g i t s November As an i n i t i a l 13, 2012, court had e r r e d i n denying h i s motion to has on December matter, 20, 2012, o r d e r . we n o t e t h a t none o f t h e p a r t i e s addressed t h i s court's j u r i s d i c t i o n t o consider that part o f D.F.H.'s a p p e a l c h a l l e n g i n g t h e November D.F.H. h a s a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l due p r o c e s s by o r d e r i n g court v i o l a t e d h i s right to t h a t he c o u l d not discuss child t h e concerns r a i s e d by t h e guardian which DHR was conducting to the divorce with regard with the ad l i t e m an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . D.F.H. c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l nonparty 20, 2012, o r d e r . and i n t o Specifically, c o u r t c o u l d n o t e n j o i n him, a action, from taking certain action to the c h i l d . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 20, 2012, o r d e r c l e a r l y was an interlocutory order intended t o remain i n effect while DHR conducted i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and w h i l e t h e husband's v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s were t e m p o r a r i l y s u s p e n d e d . a party to the action such that E v e n a s s u m i n g D.F.H. was he could appeal i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r , s u c h an o r d e r w i l l n o t s u p p o r t that an a p p e a l . T.C. v. Mac.M., 96 So. 3d 115, 119 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . 6 2120220 However, i n h i s a r g u m e n t s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e November 20, 2012, o r d e r , D.F.H. i n s i s t s t h a t t h a t p a r t o f t h e November 20, 2012, order litem's allegations injunction. order p r o h i b i t i n g him from d i s c u s s i n g with t h e young court may a p p e a l assuming t h a t t h e c h a l l e n g e d that constitutes A n o n p a r t y whose c o n d u c t h a s b e e n e n j o i n e d of the t r i a l order child t h e guardian ad the order; (Ala. Ex p a r t e State C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . trial court's preliminary appellate appeal. b y an therefore, a s p e c t o f t h e November 20, 2012, amounts t o an i n j u n c t i o n , D.F.H. h a s s t a n d i n g order. an Pers. t o appeal B d . , 45 So. 3d 7 5 1 , 754 A s s u m i n g , as D.F.H. a r g u e s , t h a t t h e November injunction, 20, we 2012, conclude order that constituted D.F.H. may a seek r e v i e w o f t h a t p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n b y way o f an However, s u c h an a p p e a l must be t i m e l y filed. "The t i m e l y f i l i n g of a notice of appeal i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l act." Rudd v. Rudd, 467 So. 2d 964, 965 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985) . An appeal o f an o r d e r f i l e d w i t h i n 14 d a y s . Inc. v. S c h n e i d e r , 2001). filed granting an i n j u n c t i o n must be R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P.; Momar, 823 So. 2d 7 0 1 , 703-04 D.F.H's a p p e a l o f t h e November on December 13, 2012, (Ala.Civ. 20, 2012, o r d e r App. was i n e x c e s s o f 14 d a y s a f t e r t h e 7 2120220 entry of the order. 2012, order A c c o r d i n g l y , i n s o f a r as t h e November 12, granted jurisdiction over injunctive D.F.H.'s relief, appeal of this that court lacks order. 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P.; Rudd v. Rudd, s u p r a ; a n d Rule B o y k i n v. I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a p e r Co., 777 So. 2d 149, 151 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000). We therefore dismiss that part o f D.F.H.'s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e November 20, 2012, o r d e r . appeal Woods v. S u n T r u s t Bank, 81 So. 3d 357, 363 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . However, an order denying a motion s u f f i c i e n t l y f i n a l t o s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . v. G&S G l a s s & Supply J o n e s v. J o i n e s , (Ala. So. [Ms. 2110790, Dec. 2 1 , 2012] So. 3d , C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) ; F a r m e r s I n s . E x c h . v. R a i n e , 905 h e l d t h a t a postjudgment motion of t h e motion t o i n t e r v e n e . (Ala.Civ. intervene after T h i s c o u r t has the denial of a f o rappealing the denial R.D.B. v. A.C., 27 So. 3d 1283, App. 2 0 0 9 ) . D.F.H. t i m e l y a p p e a l e d (same). filed motion t o i n t e r v e n e t o l l e d t h e time to J i m P a r k e r B l d g . Co. Co., 69 So. 3d 124, 130 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) ; 2d 832, 833 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) 1285 to intervene i s Accordingly, the t r i a l we c o n c l u d e that court's d e n i a l o f h i s motion i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n between t h e w i f e and t h e husband. 8 2120220 Various provisions ("AUPA"), § 26-17-101 dispute. e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, g o v e r n 17-204(a)(1), paternity h i s marriage t o t h e c h i l d ' s mother. A l a . Code a presumed 1975. father Under "may a t any t i m e . " bring However, t h e m o t h e r n o r any o t h e r § 26- § 26-17-607(a) o f t h e an a c t i o n to disprove " [ i ] f t h e presumed p e r s i s t s i n h i s s t a t u s as t h e l e g a l f a t h e r o f a c h i l d , disprove this Under t h e AUPA, a man i s t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r o f a c h i l d born during AUPA, o f t h e Alabama U n i f o r m Parentage A c t i n d i v i d u a l may m a i n t a i n father neither an a c t i o n t o p a t e r n i t y . " § 26-17-607(a). In i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p r e d e c e s s o r t o § 26-17-607(a), our supreme court held that " [ a ] man father, but a l l e g i n g himself an a c t i o n t o have h i m s e l f n o t presumed t o be t h e f a t h e r , may declared c h i l d h a s no p r e s u m e d f a t h e r . " the father Ex p a r t e t o be t h e institute o n l y when t h e C.A.P., 683 So. 2d 1010, 1012 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . D.F.H. a r g u e s i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t he was to intervene i n the divorce pursuant t o Rule 24(a), court action as seeking a matter of right A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d t h a t the t r i a l erred i n r e f u s i n g t o grant h i s motion t o intervene. "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e as o f 9 2120220 r i g h t i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t has a c t e d o u t s i d e its discretion. See C i t y o f Dora v. B e a v e r s , 692 So. 2d 808, 810 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . T y p i c a l l y , persons d e s i r i n g t o i n t e r v e n e i n a c i v i l a c t i o n as o f r i g h t w i l l c l a i m e n t i t l e m e n t t o i n t e r v e n t i o n under Rule 24(a)(2), A l a . R. C i v . P., which mandates intervention upon timely application i f "the applicant claims an i n t e r e s t r e l a t i n g to the property or t r a n s a c t i o n which i s the subject of the a c t i o n " and i s "so s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n may as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r i m p a i r o r impede t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest i s a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y e x i s t i n g p a r t i e s . " Thus, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t u n d e r R u l e 24(a)(2), the t r i a l court has d i s c r e t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e "whether t h e p o t e n t i a l i n t e r v e n o r has demonstrated: (1) t h a t i t s m o t i o n i s t i m e l y ; (2) t h a t i t has a s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t r e l a t i n g t o t h e p r o p e r t y o r t r a n s a c t i o n ; (3) t h a t i t s a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t i t s i n t e r e s t may, as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r be i m p a i r e d o r impeded; a n d (4) t h a t i t s i n t e r e s t i s not a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d . " C i t y o f D o r a , 692 So. 2d a t 810.'" B a k e r v. Kennedy, 51 So. 3d 339, 340-41 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) (quoting Black Warrior Riverkeeper, I n c . v. E a s t W a l k e r C n t y . Sewer A u t h . , 979 So. 2d 69, 72 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ) . D.F.H. i s c o r r e c t t h a t a b i o l o g i c a l right f a t h e r does have a to intervene i n a c u s t o d y a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d he c l a i m s t o have f a t h e r e d . R.D.B. v. A.C., 27 So. 3d 1283, (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . right to intervene, 1287 "However, a l t h o u g h s u c h a man h a s a ... t h e p i v o t a l i s s u e of the b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r ' s s t a n d i n g t o a c t u a l l y p r o v e h i s p a t e r n i t y ... t u r n s on 10 2120220 whether the legal paternity." father persists i n h i s presumption of Id. On a p p e a l , D.F.H. a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t he may n o t i n s t i t u t e an a c t i o n o r i n t e r v e n e t o a s s e r t a c l a i m s e e k i n g t o e s t a b l i s h h i s p a t e r n i t y o f t h e c h i l d i f t h e husband, pursuant t o § 26- 1 7 - 6 0 7 ( a ) , " p e r s i s t s i n h i s s t a t u s as t h e l e g a l f a t h e r o f t h e child." I n d e e d , o u r supreme c o u r t h a s e x p l a i n e d : " [ T ] h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r a man h a s s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g an a c t i o n s e e k i n g t o d e c l a r e a c h i l d i l l e g i t i m a t e a n d t o have h i m s e l f d e c l a r e d t h e f a t h e r of t h a t c h i l d . This i s n o t p e r m i t t e d under t h e [AUPA], as l o n g as t h e r e i s a p r e s u m e d f a t h e r , p u r s u a n t t o [ f o r m e r ] § 2 6 - 1 7 - 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) [now § 26-17¬ 2 0 4 ] , who h a s n o t d i s c l a i m e d h i s s t a t u s as t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r ; c o n s e q u e n t l y , a n o t h e r man ... h a s no s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e t h e presumed p a t e r n i t y o f t h a t child. P u t a n o t h e r way, s o l o n g as t h e p r e s u m e d father persists i n maintaining his parental status, not even t h e subsequent marriage of the child's m o t h e r t o a n o t h e r man c a n c r e a t e s t a n d i n g i n t h e other man to challenge t h e presumed father's parental relationship." Ex p a r t e P r e s s e , D.F.H. requested 554 So. 2d 406, 418 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . argues that because t h e husband i n this t h e DNA p a t e r n i t y t e s t i n g i n h i s d i v o r c e case complaint, t h e h u s b a n d " c h a l l e n g e d h i s own p a r e n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e child." the Therefore, requirements D.F.H. m a i n t a i n s , t h e h u s b a n d h a s n o t met o f § 26-17-607 b e c a u s e , D.F.H. c l a i m s , t h e 11 2120220 h u s b a n d c a n n o t be s a i d t o be p e r s i s t i n g i n h i s c l a i m t o be t h e legal father of the c h i l d . 1 I n a s s e r t i n g t h a t a r g u m e n t , D.F.H. e q u a t e s t h e h u s b a n d ' s seeking with a determination of paternity i n h i s divorce an a c t i o n b y t h e h u s b a n d s e e k i n g t o d i s p r o v e under § 26-17-607(a). determination that 2012, o r d e r , paternity However, t h e r e c o r d does n o t s u p p o r t a t h e husband p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d . 18, action a sought As t h e t r i a l request for a to disprove court DNA h i s own noted i n i t s J u l y test to determine p a t e r n i t y i s not necessarily inconsistent with maintaining claim asserting Rather, such one's a test status as t h e c h i l d ' s c a n be r e q u e s t e d a legal father. i n t h e hopes that i t D.F.H. a l s o c o n t e n d s i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t , i n a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e DNA p a t e r n i t y t e s t , t h e h u s b a n d h a s n o t h e l d h i m s e l f o u t p u b l i c a l l y t o be t h e f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d . A p r e s u m p t i o n a r i s e s t h a t a man i s t h e f a t h e r o f a c h i l d i f , among o t h e r t h i n g s , he h o l d s h i m s e l f o u t t o t h e p u b l i c as t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r . § 2 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . Code 1975. T h a t p r e s u m p t i o n i s one o f s e v e r a l alternative p r e s u m p t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n § 2 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 4 ( a ) . D.F.H. h a s c i t e d no authority supporting the proposition that a man's a c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t he i s n o t t h e b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r o f a c h i l d o f whom he i s t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r e q u a t e s t o a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e man h a s n o t h e l d h i m s e l f o u t p u b l i c l y t o be t h e f a t h e r o f the c h i l d . Even a s s u m i n g t h a t s u c h a u t h o r i t y e x i s t e d , any f a i l u r e t o p u b l i c l y a s s e r t p a t e r n i t y does n o t a f f e c t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e h u s b a n d a f f o r d e d b y § 26-172 0 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) b e c a u s e o f h i s s t a t u s as t h e man m a r r i e d t o t h e c h i l d ' s mother a t t h e time o f t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h . 1 12 2120220 confirms the existence the and t h e c h i l d . man paternity of a b i o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p Also, to i n this be r e l e v a n t paternity testing wife's adultery, and as t h e t r i a l and alimony i n contributing factor the t r i a l case, after became known. divorce 2013) of a s u c h as action. (the r e l a t i v e See So. 3d . fault of the t o t h e breakdown o f t h e m a r r i a g e i s a court p r o p e r t y and a l i m o n y immediately in a [Ms. 2110816, M a r c h 8, 2013] parties this history o f t h e DNA a f i n d i n g o f which can a f f e c t i s s u e s division a court noted, i t appears case because t h e r e s u l t s ( A l a . C i v . App. In f o r requesting c a n be u s e d as e v i d e n c e on t h e i s s u e K e a t i n g v. K e a t i n g , _, reason t e s t w o u l d be t o e n s u r e an a c c u r a t e m e d i c a l for the c h i l d . property Another between may consider in i t s division of award). the trial the r e s u l t s court conducted o f t h e DNA a hearing paternity testing I n t h e J u l y 16, 2012, o r d e r e n t e r e d a f t e r that h e a r i n g , the t r i a l court s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t , although the husband was not the b i o l o g i c a l h u s b a n d was p e r s i s t i n g the child. father i n h i s status D.F.H. makes as t h e l e g a l no a r g u m e n t a c t i o n , t h e husband i s not a s s e r t i n g 13 of the c h i l d , that, h i s status father the of i n the divorce as t h e c h i l d ' s 2120220 p r e s u m e d f a t h e r p u r s u a n t t o § 2 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) . R a t h e r , D.F.H. a r g u e s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s a d m i s s i o n o r a c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t he is not the b i o l o g i c a l father of the c h i l d i s sufficient to d e f e a t h i s l e g a l c l a i m t h a t he i s t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s u m e d f a t h e r . However, t h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t , in persisting i n a c l a i m as t h e l e g a l o r p r e s u m e d f a t h e r o f a c h i l d , believe or biological have father evidence demonstrating of the c h i l d . that I n Ex p a r t e the mother ended h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h one must he i s the C.A.P., supra, the b i o l o g i c a l father o f t h e c h i l d a n d m a r r i e d a d i f f e r e n t man two months b e f o r e t h e child's birth. Our supreme c o u r t , § 26-17-607, h e l d standing that c i t i n g the predecessor to the c h i l d ' s b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r h a d no t o s e e k t o have h i s p a t e r n i t y e s t a b l i s h e d . n o t p r e s u m e d t o be t h e f a t h e r , b u t a l l e g i n g h i m s e l f f a t h e r , may i n s t i t u t e an a c t i o n t o have h i m s e l f the child no o t h e r man c o u l d Ex p a r t e c a s e , as i n t h i s m o t h e r ' s h u s b a n d was t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s u m e d therefore, the In that t o be t h e declared the f a t h e r o n l y when t h e c h i l d h a s no p r e s u m e d f a t h e r . " C.A.P., 683 So. 2d a t 1012. "A man case, f a t h e r , and, s e e k t o have h i s p a t e r n i t y o f determined. 14 2120220 I n B a k e r v. Kennedy, s u p r a , R.K. was b o r n o f t h e m o t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Baker, b u t the mother l a t e r m a r r i e d Kennedy. Kennedy and t h e m o t h e r l a t e r o b t a i n e d an o r d e r o f l e g i t i m a t i o n and i d e n t i f i e d Kennedy as t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r on t h e child's b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e , and Kennedy a c t e d as a f a t h e r t o t h e c h i l d . When Kennedy agreement A.K., and t h e m o t h e r that addressed divorced, custody they issues the c h i l d born of t h e i r marriage. entered into an p e r t a i n i n g only to Thereafter, moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e a g r e e m e n t and s o u g h t v i s i t a t i o n not only entered with A.K., but with R.K. The rights trial court an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t as t o t h e c u s t o d y pending, married intervene Baker also Kennedy the mother him. The issues. While the matter remained resumed h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h B a k e r trial court i n t h e a c t i o n between denied Baker's motion t h e m o t h e r and Kennedy, and to and appealed. This court h e l d t h a t , under the predecessor t o § 26-17¬ 204, Kennedy was t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s u m e d f a t h e r by v i r t u e o f h i s 15 2120220 marriage birth t o t h e m o t h e r and h i s p l a c i n g h i s name on t h e certificate. 2 This c o u r t then concluded child's that " b e c a u s e Kennedy i s a p r e s u m e d f a t h e r u n d e r f o r m e r § 26-17-5(a)(3)b. [now § 26-17-204(a)(4)], Baker w o u l d n o t have t h e r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e d i v o r c e action under the former a c t , p r o v i d e d Kennedy p e r s i s t s i n h i s s t a t u s as a p r e s u m e d f a t h e r . See f o r m e r § 2 6 - 1 7 - 6 ( a ) [now § 2 6 - 1 7 - 6 0 7 ( a ) ] and Ex p a r t e P r e s s e , 554 So. 2d 406, 418 ( A l a . 1989) ('[S]o l o n g as t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r p e r s i s t s i n m a i n t a i n i n g his paternal s t a t u s , not even the subsequent m a r r i a g e o f t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r t o a n o t h e r man can c r e a t e s t a n d i n g i n t h e o t h e r man t o c h a l l e n g e t h e F o r m e r § 2 6 - 1 7 - 5 ( a ) , r e p e a l e d and r e p l a c e d by 204(a)(4), provided, i n pertinent part: 2 § 26-17- "(a) A man i s p r e s u m e d t o be t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f a c h i l d i f any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a p p l y : "(3) A f t e r t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h , he and t h e c h i l d ' s n a t u r a l m o t h e r have m a r r i e d , o r attempted to marry, each other by a marriage solemnized i n apparent compliance with the law although the attempted m a r r i a g e i s o r c o u l d be d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d , and " a . He has a c k n o w l e d g e d h i s paternity of the child in w r i t i n g , the w r i t i n g b e i n g f i l e d w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t or the O f f i c e of V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s ; or "b. W i t h h i s c o n s e n t , he i s named as t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r on the c h i l d ' s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e . " 16 2120220 p r e s u m e d f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . ' ) ; see a l s o H o o t e n v. H o o t e n , 754 So. 2d 634, 635 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) ('Our supreme c o u r t has h e l d t h a t no one, i n c l u d i n g t h e m o t h e r o f t h e c h i l d , has s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e a p r e s u m e d f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y as l o n g as the presumed f a t h e r p e r s i s t s i n c l a i m i n g p a t e r n i t y of the c h i l d . ' ) . " B a k e r v. Kennedy, 51 So. evidence indicated presumption of 3d a t 342. that This court noted that Kennedy paternity, and, had persisted his i t affirmed therefore, in the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of Baker's motion t o i n t e r v e n e . Kennedy, In 2005), Cravens the wife Cravens, and the requested paternity. the v. the birth during a divorce wife DNA The a other of the court father. the in test to child 538 that (Ala. Civ. case at issue awarded the the child. born disprove g r a n t e d the In i t s d i v o r c e things, 2d child test excluded determined t h a t , because the of So. husband paternity p h y s i c a l custody of the father 936 App. married i n that two case, a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d three years l a t e r , trial paternity biological among B a k e r v. supra. months b e f o r e and, the wife's the parties the joint the court, legal trial p r e s u m e d t o be marriage, and child's judgment, the t r i a l h u s b a n d was 17 husband's request, h u s b a n d as In d o i n g so, during the the the and court the DNA- 2120220 paternity-test wife r e s u l t d i d not defeat that presumption. a p p e a l e d , and t h i s court stated that court affirmed. The I n so h o l d i n g , this t h e h u s b a n d h a d p e r s i s t e d i n h i s c l a i m as t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d even a f t e r t h e p a t e r n i t y t e s t demonstrated t h a t he was n o t t h e c h i l d ' s b i o l o g i c a l In a d d i t i o n , t h i s identified by court o u r supreme obvious o b j e c t i v e s are to provide welfare court, specifically f o r the psychological of the c h i l d Ex p a r t e considerations that "'the o f t h e A l a b a m a U n i f o r m P a r e n t a g e A c t ... whenever p o s s i b l e . ' " (quoting also noted the p o l i c y father. and t o a f f o r d Cravens stability legitimacy v. Cravens, and general to children 936 So. 2d a t 541 C.A.P., 683 So. 2d a t 1012) . 3 We n o t e t h a t D.F.H. b r i e f l y c o n t e n d s t h a t § 2 6 - 1 7 - 6 0 7 ( b ) a p p l i e s t o t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case and a l l o w s him t o r e b u t t h e presumption o f p a t e r n i t y i n f a v o r o f t h e husband. That section provides: 3 "(b) A p r e s u m p t i o n o f p a t e r n i t y e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n may be r e b u t t e d i n an a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n o n l y by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . In the e v e n t two o r more c o n f l i c t i n g presumptions a r i s e , t h a t w h i c h i s f o u n d e d upon t h e w e i g h t i e r considerations o f p u b l i c p o l i c y and l o g i c , as evidenced by t h e f a c t s , shall control. The p r e s u m p t i o n o f p a t e r n i t y i s r e b u t t e d by a c o u r t decree e s t a b l i s h i n g p a t e r n i t y o f t h e c h i l d by a n o t h e r man." D.F.H. does not contend that 18 he i s a p r e s u m e d father 2120220 The foregoing a u t h o r i t i e s demonstrate t h a t , i n order f o r a man t o p e r s i s t i n m a i n t a i n i n g the presumed or requirement that be, a legal child's of a child, father of the c h i l d . father of a c h i l d persist i n maintaining even w i t h father there i s no t h e man b e l i e v e he i s , o r t h a t he a c t u a l l y the b i o l o g i c a l presumed h i s p a t e r n i t y o r h i s c l a i m as under R a t h e r , when he i s § 26-17-204, a man may h i s s t a t u s as t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d t h e c e r t a i n k n o w l e d g e t h a t he i s n o t a c t u a l l y t h e biological father. Therefore, contrary to the argument a s s e r t e d b y D.F.H., i t i s i r r e l e v a n t t h a t t h e h u s b a n d has a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he i s n o t t h e b i o l o g i c a l child. Likewise, given the possible father ofthe reasons a person might seek a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a c h i l d ' s paternity, the facts of this case, court's and t h e t r i a l f i n d i n g s , we c o n c l u d e that the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o s u c h a p r e s u m p t i o n u n d e r t h a t s e c t i o n . R a t h e r , he c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e h u s b a n d "gave r i s e t o two o r more c o n f l i c t i n g p r e s u m p t i o n s " when he r e q u e s t e d t h e DNA p a t e r n i t y t e s t . D.F.H. f a i l s t o i d e n t i f y t h o s e p u r p o r t e d c o n f l i c t i n g p r e s u m p t i o n s o r e x p l a i n h i s argument f u r t h e r . Therefore, we c o n c l u d e t h a t D.F.H. h a s f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y d e v e l o p a n d s u p p o r t h i s argument as r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P., a n d we d e c l i n e t o c r e a t e o r s u b s t a n t i a t e an argument on h i s b e h a l f . See B o a r d o f Water & Sewer Comm'rs o f C i t y o f M o b i l e v. B i l l H a r b e r t C o n s t r . Co., 27 So. 3d 1223, 1262-63 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) ; a n d Downs v . L y l e s , 41 So. 3d 86, 91-92 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . 19 2120220 f a c t t h a t t h e husband sought a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s paternity did i n favor not operate t o waive the presumption s t a t u s as t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d c r e a t e d of by § 26-17-204. his 4 D.F.H. h a s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a s n o t continued to persist father of the c h i l d . i n h i s claim Accordingly, as t h e l e g a l o r presumed D.F.H. h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d that the t r i a l court e r r e d i n denying h i s motion t o i n t e r v e n e . APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; JUDGMENT DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE AFFIRMED. Pittman, Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. D.F.H. s t a t e s i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e argument s e c t i o n o f h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a h e a r i n g on h i s c h a l l e n g e o f whether t h e husband p e r s i s t s i n h i s a s s e r t i o n o f h i s s t a t u s as t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s u m e d o r l e g a l f a t h e r . D.F.H. has f a i l e d t o c i t e a n y a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h a t a r g u m e n t , i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P. We n o t e , o u t o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n , t h a t t h e p l e a d i n g s , m o t i o n s , a n d o r d e r s i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l r e n d e r a h e a r i n g on t h a t i s s u e unnecessary i n t h i s case; i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e husband p e r s i s t s i n the presumption a f f o r d e d him by § 26-17-607(a)(1). 4 20

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.