Ex parte S.E. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: K.R.W. v. S.E. and M.A.W.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/03/2013 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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 2120417 Ex p a r t e S.E. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : K.R.W. v. S.E. and M.A.W.) (Morgan J u v e n i l e Court, CS-12-213) THOMAS, J u d g e . M.A.W. married ("the husband") on J u l y a n d K.R.W. 1, 2 0 1 0 , i n Morgan ("the County. wife") A.M.W. were ("the 2120417 c h i l d " ) was b o r n on A u g u s t 19, 2010. to this court indicate that, f i l e d a complaint paternity, on A u g u s t custody, child support averred biological court that to establish and v i s i t a t i o n " i n the ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) ; t h e w i f e h u s b a n d a n d S.E. as d e f e n d a n t s . wife submitted 21, 2012, t h e w i f e s t y l e d as a " v e r i f i e d c o m p l a i n t Morgan J u v e n i l e C o u r t the The m a t e r i a l s S.E., and I n her complaint, not the husband, f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d and r e q u e s t e d "establish[] paternity named of the the was the that the j u v e n i l e minor child and r e c o g n i z [ e ] [ S . E . ] as t h e f a t h e r o f t h e s a i d c h i l d . " f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s on November 27, 2012, a r g u i n g among other things, because t h e husband was t h e w i f e d i d n o t have s t a n d i n g the attached S.E. to h i s motion that, the presumed father of the c h i l d , action. S.E. the to bring husband's v e r i f i e d complaint f o r a d i v o r c e i n which t h e husband asked t o be of the c h i l d awarded c u s t o d y divorce complaint. February 13, testing. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t 2013, ordering the wife, S.E. and t h e w i f e ' s answer t o t h e denying S.E.'s the c h i l d , then filed entered motion an o r d e r to dismiss on and a n d S.E. t o s u b m i t t o g e n e t i c this mandamus. 2 petition for a writ of 2120417 "'"A w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy ... t h a t s h o u l d be g r a n t e d o n l y i f the trial court clearly abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y a c t i n g i n an a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s manner." Ex p a r t e E d w a r d s , 727 So. 2d 792, 794 ( A l a . 1998) . The p e t i t i o n e r must d e m o n s t r a t e : "'"'(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the petitioner to the order s o u g h t ; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e duty upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do so; (3) t h e l a c k o f another a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the court.'" "'Ex p a r t e E d w a r d s , 727 So. 2d a t 794 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Adams, 514 So. 2d 845, 850 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . ' "Ex p a r t e D.J.B., App. 2 0 0 3 ) . " 859 So. 2d 445, 448 Ex p a r t e S.P., 72 So. 3d 1250, 1251-52 S.E. seeks court to dismiss him, the wife Section Uniform Code a writ the wife's lacked limited standing to Civ. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) . compelling complaint 2 6 - 1 7 - 6 0 2 , A l a . Code the j u v e n i l e because, according t o institute 1975, a p a r t her action. o f t h e Alabama P a r e n t a g e A c t ("the AUPA"), § 26-17-101 e t s e q . , A l a . 1975, p r o v i d e s action o f mandamus (Ala. that to adjudicate i n application a n y i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y may b r i n g an parentage. However, b y §§ 26-17-607 3 § 26-17-602 i s a n d 26-17-609, Ala. 2120417 Code 1975, w h i c h adjudication the of paternity. AUPA p e r m i t s disprove restrict who has When t h e r e t h e presumed f a t h e r standing to seek i s a presumed to bring an father, an a c t i o n t o h i s p a t e r n i t y a t any t i m e . § 2 6 - 1 7 - 6 0 7 ( a ) . However, i f t h e presumed f a t h e r wishes t o p e r s i s t i n h i s p r e s u m p t i o n o f paternity, no one may bring an action to disprove p a t e r n i t y o r t o e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y i n a n o t h e r man. I d . his ("If 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 h i s s t a t u s as t h e l e g a l f a t h e r of a child, maintain an neither action t h e m o t h e r n o r any o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l may to disprove paternity."). Comment t o § 26-17-607 s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t (a) f o l l o w s Ex p a r t e Alabama "[s]ubsection P r e s s e , 554 So. 2d 406 ( A l a . 1989) [,] a n d i t s progeny that favor m a i n t a i n i n g unit The the i n t e g r i t y of the family and t h e f a t h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p that was developed therein." S.E. i s correct that t h e husband i n t h e p r e s e n t case i s the presumed f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d under § 2 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ a ] father of a c h i l d married t o each marriage." man i s p r e s u m e d t o be t h e i f ... he a n d t h e m o t h e r o f t h e c h i l d a r e other and t h e c h i l d i s born during the The h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e were m a r r i e d b e f o r e t h e 4 2120417 c h i l d was b o r n , and, a l t h o u g h i t appears t h a t t h e husband has f i l e d a complaint time f o r a d i v o r c e , they remained married a t the the wife f i l e d motion t o d i s m i s s . divorce that he circuit court") t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n a n d S.E. f i l e d h i s Moreover, i n the v e r i f i e d complaint filed i n t h e Morgan on J a n u a r y t h e two marriage, 1 children which born Court 2, 2012, t h e h u s b a n d among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e c i r c u i t of Circuit ("the requested, c o u r t grant him custody o f t h e husband included the c h i l d for a and t h e w i f e ' s at issue i n the present action. Because t h e husband i s t h e c h i l d ' s presumed f a t h e r under § 26-17-204(a) and p e r s i s t s pursuant institute to an § i n h i s presumption 26-17-607(a) action the seeking to wife lacks disprove p a t e r n i t y o r t o e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y i n S.E. grant S.E.'s p e t i t i o n for a writ of paternity, standing the to husband's A c c o r d i n g l y , we o f mandamus. Because t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e w i f e , t h e c h i l d , a n d S.E. t o u n d e r g o g e n e t i c t e s t i n g as a means o f p r o v i n g o r d i s p r o v i n g S.E.'s p a t e r n i t y was b a s e d on t h e w i f e ' s action seeking to A p p a r e n t l y , a t t h e time t h e husband f i l e d h i s d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t , t h e w i f e was p r e g n a n t . M.W. was b o r n on F e b r u a r y 8, 2012. The p a t e r n i t y o f M.W. i s n o t an i s s u e i n t h e p r e s e n t case. 1 5 2120417 e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y , w h i c h was i n s t i t u t e d w i t h o u t s t a n d i n g , we d i r e c t the j u v e n i l e court t o vacate v. Shabani, Property 1999) that order. 4 So. 3d 460, 463 ( A l a . 2008) a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , (quoting i n turn Beach notices jurisdiction or i s informed must d i s m i s s (quoting S t a t e v. 740 So. 2d 1025, 1029 ( A l a . v. D i r e c t o r S.W.2d 3 1 5 , 318 (Mo. C t . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ) ) that See C a d l e Co. that o f Revenue, 934 (stating that a court i t lacks subject-matter t h e a c t i o n and t h a t " ' " [ a ] n y other a c t i o n taken by a c o u r t l a c k i n g s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s null and v o i d " ' " ) . PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , concur. 6 Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . ,

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.