Ex parte T.J. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: R.W. v. T.J. and C.W. and T.J. v. R.W. and C.W.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/24/2011 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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, 2010-2011 2100277 Ex p a r t e T . J . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: R.W. v . T . J . and C.W. and T.J. v . R.W. (Montgomery J u v e n i l e C o u r t , THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g Judge. and C.W.) JU-09-700.01 and JU-09-700.02) 2100277 T.J. petitions this court for d i r e c t i n g t h e Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court to recognize S.W. and a d j u d i c a t e ("the c h i l d " ) and t o v a c a t e testing to e s t a b l i s h the child's According the him as brief filed of the guardian i n this petition to the b r i e f s court a petition i t s order mandamus father requiring genetic o f t h e p a r t i e s and of the child's siblings o f and i n o p p o s i t i o n grandmother's with ("the m a t e r n a l against ("the m o t h e r " ) , s e e k i n g including petition this i s not petition of paternity. ad l i t e m grandmother grandchildren, submitted t h e presumed i n the j u v e n i l e court the c h i l d ' s mother her of ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) and m a t e r i a l s i n support writ to the f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, on S e p t e m b e r 3, 2 0 0 9 , the c h i l d ' s maternal filed a the included f o r the grandmother"), T . J . and custody child. R.W., C.W., of three of The in writ maternal the materials of mandamus. 1 We note that when a n a p p e l l a t e court "considers a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h e o n l y m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e i t are t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e answer and any a t t a c h m e n t s t o those d o c u m e n t s . T h e r e i s no t r a d i t i o n a l ' r e c o r d ' s u b m i t t e d " as t h e r e i s i n an a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e G u a r a n t y P e s t C o n t r o l , I n c . , 21 S o . 3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 8 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . Rule 2 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) and ( E ) , Ala. R. A p p . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s t o p r o v i d e t h i s court with a "statement of the f a c t s necessary t o an understanding o f t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d b y t h e p e t i t i o n , " as w e l l as " [ c ] o p i e s o f any o r d e r o r o p i n i o n o r p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d t h a t w o u l d be e s s e n t i a l t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the matters set forth i n the p e t i t i o n . " The r e s p o n d e n t i s a l s o 1 2 2100277 However, according support to the b r i e f s child's the maternal father On grandmother i n her custody October 30, court petition i s not i n c l u d e d However, according relating petition, to On November the custody 2009, of the c h i l d . court, January for a writ 2010, genetic testing child. T.J. apparently ground that g i v e n an exhibits Ex p a r t e see a l s o 232 n. 2 he a T.J. briefs for a writ T.J.'s the the him the this to objected "receive[d] court father the c h i l d ' s filed a to the b r i e f s mother court. o f mandamus, i n T . J . ' s since mother custody this t h a t he i s t h e c h i l d ' s According the as in petition and birth. petition submitted for to as t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . filed a motion o f T . J . and J.H. t o e s t a b l i s h had of to of the c h i l d . t h e m o t h e r named J . H . 22, filed parties' lived with 13, in i n the m a t e r i a l s before he c l a i m s t h e c h i l d has T.J. custody to T.J.'s p e t i t i o n custody On seeking referred court petition. 2009, juvenile this to t h i s o f and i n o p p o s i t i o n t o T.J.'s p e t i t i o n mandamus, that submitted requesting p a t e r n i t y of the t o t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n on t h e the child into h i s home and " o p p o r t u n i t y to supplement the ' r e c o r d ' by a t t a c h i n g o f i t s own " F o n t a i n e T r a i l e r C o . , 854 S o . 2 d 7 1 , 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; E x p a r t e C o v i n g t o n P i k e D o d g e , I n c . , 904 S o . 2 d 2 2 6 , ( A l a . 2004). 3 2100277 openly [ h e l d ] out openly [held] give rise the out to the a are as child his natural child as his presumption 26-17-204(a)(5), mentioned child Ala. of Code contained natural in the None otherwise child" paternity 1975. or so as pursuant of the to to § documents materials submitted juvenile court held to this court. On December hearing on December the 3, 2010, issue 17, 2010, of the T.J.'s the p a t e r n i t y of juvenile court a the child. entered g r a n t i n g the mother's motion f o r g e n e t i c t e s t i n g . 29, 2010, T.J. directing as the the complied In facts or with parties' the that their at father briefs of to the a recognize child This other for and court parties, to On December mandamus adjudicate vacate called and order of writ and an On the for the him order an answer parties have request. briefs, respective presumptive petition testing. from presented her father genetic briefs his j u v e n i l e court presumed requiring and filed six-hour the each of December position of that the the 3, parties 2010, regarding child. material 4 It facts argues hearing whether is are that the support his T.J. apparent in is the from the dispute. For 2100277 example, T.J. him. In her times when T.J. for he asserts brief, the the child was child the at child mother has has claims lived the with always her with there that lived have been not with T.J. and c h i l d ' s Head S t a r t s c h o o l child's father. for the the writ, states i s the that the mother's the friends. had held the mother's name the that child brief, guardian not of that ad out that litem issuance was testimony listed of states heard father and that that he had than that two T.J. 5 was and the also of T.J.'s that However, those in friends not wondered T.J.'s names. of that as friends said one as parties The the stated of that i t i d e n t i f i e d J.H. as h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d . had different the litem also states that he was against T.J.'s, the T.J. she indicated Head S t a r t p a p e r w o r k i n d i c a t e s and substance T.J. biological argues completed g u a r d i a n ad the Head S t a r t p a p e r w o r k . In h i s b r i e f , testified who The address, a d d r e s s on dispute the b r i e f of the c h i l d ' s " g o d f a t h e r " and child's father. child's The child's siblings, the last the a s s e r t s t h a t paperwork the m a t e r n a l grandmother the T.J. that the child's why the child's the mother's last 2100277 In addition court, that the and that and rebutted indicated that T.J. that, incarceration, the submitted a evidence was any presumption brief was the was mother brief at the T.J. made c l e a r i n b o t h i t s court, T.J. already the at the was five and T . J . have mother has p u b l i c l y i d e n t i f i e d this stating presented evidence time to the j u v e n i l e court, time the mother The this to of p a t e r n i t y that incarcerated According by the c h i l d . to presented letter As t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t child's conception. with court i t s letter undisputed parties' briefs convincing might have had. order the juvenile clear hearing to of the evidence released months from pregnant never married, a n o t h e r man is and as t h e c h i l d ' s father. In i t s order, the child and that T.J. provided child. had the j u v e n i l e court developed However, the a parent-child financial juvenile After weighing the type and e m o t i o n a l court " u n l i k e l y " t h a t T . J . b e l i e v e d he was child. recognized also t h a t T . J . and of r e l a t i o n s h i p support found that to the i t was the n a t u r a l f a t h e r of the evidence, the juvenile court c o n c l u d e d t h a t T . J . c a n n o t be t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s u m e d f a t h e r . In the no order, the juvenile court 6 stated that "there was 2100277 presumed f a t h e r i n t h i s for genetic testing matter" a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , an was a p p r o p r i a t e . This i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the f i n d i n g that T.J. and supportive As grounds contends that adjudicate because f o rh i spetition the him he challenge says, relationship with i s juvenile as h i s status when the p e t i t i o n e r to the order lack invoked 2d So. one can father. to that, legally Therefore, T.J. genetic testing to i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y a v a i l a b l e of another jurisdiction 2 d 1 2 7 0 , 1272 adequate order. remedy; of the court.'" and a clear duty legal upon t h e t o do s o ; (3) (4) t h e p r o p e r l y Ex p a r t e Nall, 879 S o . ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e BOC G r o u p , I n c . , 823 (Ala. i s the proper interlocutory demonstrates: "'(1) accompanied by a r e f u s a l 5 4 1 , 543 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) mandamus argues s o u g h t ; ( 2 ) an i m p e r a t i v e respondent to perform, the He no ordered failing p a t e r n i t y of the child. o f mandamus right in father. as t h e c h i l d ' s A writ only erred father, the j u v e n i l e court improperly establish had developed a l o v i n g f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, T . J . court presumed i snot the child. t h e presumed the conclusion order 2001)). A petition vehicle f o r seeking Ex p a r t e A.M.P., 7 for a writ review of of an 997 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 1 4 2100277 (Ala. However, situations in 2008). where "[a] writ other o f mandamus w i l l relief i s issue unavailable only or i s i n a d e q u a t e , a n d i t c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a p p e a l . " Ex parte (Ala. 2d Empire (Ala. T.J.'s 1975, Act 1975, & Marine 1998) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e 252 his Fire I n s . C o . , 720 S o . 2 d 8 9 3 , 894 Drill argument that, appears pursuant t o be t h a t ("the AUPA"), forth no o n e c a n to § 26-17-204(a)(5), he i s t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r . paternity & S e r v . C o . , 590 S o . 1991)). assertion sets Parts The Alabama U n i f o r m c o d i f i e d a t § 26-17-101 e t seq., the statutory of a c h i l d . criteria In pertinent challenge Ala. Code Parentage Ala. Code f o r determining the part, § 26-17-204(a)(5) states: "A man i s presumed t o be t h e f a t h e r of a c h i l d i f : "(5) w h i l e t h e c h i l d i s u n d e r t h e age o f m a j o r i t y , he r e c e i v e s t h e c h i l d i n t o h i s home a n d o p e n l y h o l d s out the c h i l d as h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d or otherwise o p e n l y h o l d s o u t t h e c h i l d as h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d and establishes a significant parental relationship with the child by p r o v i d i n g emotional and financial support f o r the c h i l d . " Section 27-17-204(b) provides: "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 b e r e b u t t e d o n l y b y an adjudication 8 2100277 u n d e r A r t i c l e 6 [§ 2 6 - 1 7 - 6 0 1 t h r o u g h § 2 6 - 1 7 - 6 3 8 ] . I n t h e e v e n t two o r more c o n f l i c t i n g presumptions arise, t h a t w h i c h i s f o u n d e d upon t h e weightier considerations of p u b l i c policy and logic, as evidenced by the facts, shall control. The presumption of p a t e r n i t y i s rebutted by a court decree establishing paternity of the c h i l d by a n o t h e r man." (Emphasis The added.) purpose determine the of whether child. determine the December T . J . was, In o r d e r i n g paternity, i n fact, genetic the 3, 2010, t o be court that [ T . J . was] the presumed As p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d , a man the i s the presumed child natural child relationship financial not type presumed and with support enough child or otherwise of the c h i l d of father openly holds child a by to develop relationship with of a conducted to that, i t was child. 9 when based "unable to "he receives as h i s out the c h i l d as h i s significant (Emphasis parental emotional added.) a loving, nurturing, a that out the c h i l d providing f o r the c h i l d . " f o r a man of § 26-17-204(a)(5) provides establishes the father father." i n t o h i s home a n d o p e n l y h o l d s child natural father to stated upon t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h a t h e a r i n g , find was the presumed testing juvenile hearing child t o be the and It is parentlegally 2100277 In this case, proceedings before before because we do n o t have the j u v e n i l e court, we a record simply of the do n o t h a v e u s t h e means t o know w h e t h e r T . J . p r e s e n t e d sufficient e v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t he h e l d t h e c h i l d out to the 26-17- public 204(a)(5); as we also was d i s p u t e d . in support mandamus, that his natural do know that mother has c l a i m e d child's natural 1097, court that last that such to resolve. juvenile court presumed t o us f o r a w r i t of demonstrates and t h a t the than T.J. i s the issue B a k e r v . T o w n s e n d , 484 S o . 2 d that the w r i t to recognize father, i n the evidence are Without a t r a n s c r i p t of the we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was from which to hold and evidence submitted name other conflicts T.J. held himself as t h e c h i l d ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . petition such evidence a man 1098 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) . six-hour hearing, public T.J.'s in § father. i s axiomatic evidence extent to the p e t i t i o n undisputed d i d not share child's for the t r i a l described do n o t know t o w h a t o f and i n o p p o s i t i o n we as H o w e v e r , b a s e d on t h e m a t e r i a l s the c h i l d It child we would i n this usurping 10 out to the I f we w e r e t o g r a n t t h e case, and a d j u d i c a t e be sufficient d i r e c t i n g the T . J . as t h e c h i l d ' s the j u v e n i l e court's 2100277 a u t h o r i t y , w i t h o u t the b e n e f i t of a t r a n s c r i p t of the Because provided to the this court months p r e g n a n t incarceration t h a t T.J. we do not and court's failed that is not For writ of the from i t m u s t be recognized father. Therefore, t e s t i n g i n an of the child. is the he to contest the c h i l d ' s presumed PETITION released was genetic has establish set mandamus i s due him, five granting j u v e n i l e court reasons T.J. m o t h e r was will that the the materials injury" T.J. method f o r T.J. before the "undue that to in child's biological paternity testing forth show t h a t child demonstrate to set began d a t i n g the w r i t d i r e c t i n g the genetic the order established as tends to she believe determine been with c a n n o t be juvenile to evidence hearing. presumed a clear above, i t has order Thus, an the effort never he legal right juvenile court's i s by from father, to v a c a t e the father be Because paternity. forth to arise has to a granting the proper ruling that he appeal. T.J.'s petition for a denied. DENIED. Pittman and Thomas, J., Moore, J J . , dissents, concur. with joins. 11 writing, which Bryan, J., 2100277 THOMAS, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I must juvenile respectfully court, despite dissent. stating I disagree i n i t s order that that the i t was " u n a b l e t o f i n d t h a t [ T . J . w a s ] the presumed f a t h e r , " a c t u a l l y failed Ala. t o conclude Code that T . J . was t h e p r e s u m e d 1975 § 2 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , , U n i f o r m P a r e n t a g e A c t ("the e t seq. In order the w r i t should the order a part father under o f t h e Alabama A c t " ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 § 2 6 - 1 7 - 1 0 1 t o make c l e a r t h e b a s i s upon w h i c h I b e l i e v e be g r a n t e d , from w h i c h T.J. I will seeks quote a l a r g e p o r t i o n of relief. " I t i s c l e a r from the t e s t i m o n y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s and t h e a d m i s s i o n s b y t h e m o t h e r t h a t [ T . J . ] h a s been i n a generous and l o v i n g r o l e towards t h e minor c h i l d , a n d t h a t he h a s p r o v i d e d f o r h e r e m o t i o n a l l y and f i n a n c i a l l y s i n c e h e r b i r t h . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t i s c l e a r from t h e t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e mother has a l l o w e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o grow a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d c a l l s [ T . J . ] ' d a d d y . ' The e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y shows t h a t [ T . J . ] , d e s p i t e k n o w i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d i s n o t o r may n o t be h i s g e n e t i c c h i l d , a f f i r m a t i v e l y a c c e p t e d a c a r e g i v e r r o l e as t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d , t h e m o t h e r , a n d t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r have r e l i e d on t h a t a c c e p t a n c e . " A t t h e h e a r i n g , [ T . J . ] s o u g h t t o have t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c l a r a t i o n o f [ T . J . ' s ] p a r e n t a g e and t h a t he i s 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 ] p u r s u a n t t o § 2 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) Code o f A l a b a m a (1975), which s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t . . . 'A man i s p r e s u m e d t o be t h e f a t h e r o f a c h i l d i f : w h i l e t h e c h i l d i s u n d e r t h e age o f m a j o r i t y , he r e c e i v e s t h e c h i l d i n t o h i s home a n d o p e n l y h o l d s o u t t h e c h i l d as h i s 12 2100277 n a t u r a l c h i l d or o t h e r w i s e o p e n l y h o l d s out the child as his natural child and establishes a s i g n i f i c a n t 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 c h i l d by p r o v i d i n g e m o t i o n a l and f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e child ' " I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t [ T . J . ] has e s t a b l i s h e d a parent-child relationship with [the child]. Notwithstanding t h e same, i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h i s c h i l d t o be h i s ' n a t u r a l ' c h i l d when he was incarcerated at the likely time of conception. [ T . J . ] does n o t d i s p u t e t h a t he was i n c a r c e r a t e d f r o m J u l y t h r o u g h November i n 2004 and f u r t h e r t h a t he d i d n o t have a p h y s i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the mother at the l i k e l y time of conception. This court cannot ignore t h i s f a c t . F u r t h e r , the m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was already 5 months p r e g n a n t when [ T . J . ] was r e l e a s e d f r o m i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n November 2004. T h i s c o u r t a l s o c o n s i d e r e d the HeadStart application, which pre-dates this p r o c e e d i n g , w h e r e i n the mother i d e n t i f i e d another man as t h e f a t h e r o f [ t h e c h i l d ] and identified [ T . J . ] as t h e G o d f a t h e r . " B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h i s c o u r t i s u n a b l e t o find that [T.J.] is the presumed father. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e P a r t i e s may p r o c e e d w i t h g e n e t i c testing." As a reading makes c l e a r , t h e of the juvenile j u v e n i l e court court's factual findings d i d d e t e r m i n e t h a t T.J. had, i n f a c t , e s t a b l i s h e d f a c t s amounting to a presumption of p a t e r n i t y under § 26-17-204(a)(5). "(a) A child i f : man That s e c t i o n i s p r e s u m e d t o be " 13 the reads: father of a his 2100277 " ( 5 ) w h i l e t h e c h i l d i s u n d e r t h e age o f m a j o r i t y , he r e c e i v e s t h e c h i l d i n t o h i s home and o p e n l y h o l d s o u t t h e c h i l d as h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d or o t h e r w i s e o p e n l y h o l d s out the child as his natural child and establishes a significant parental r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e c h i l d by p r o v i d i n g emotional and f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e child." The j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d , as a m a t t e r o f f a c t , t h a t T . J . , knew or at biological role least emotionally the and In calls minor accepted a a d d i t i o n , the [T.J.] of child was not (2) since "has her caregiver provided birth," role j u v e n i l e court as 'daddy'" and f a t h e r i n the that relied T.J., on the for her and (3) has the child's found t h a t mother, child's life. These f i n d i n g s "otherwise [held] child the establishe[d] a child by child as significant providing emotional his natural parental and 14 "the child and T.J.'s assumption of and w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n e s t a b l i s h t h a t T . J . has out his loving a l l o w e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o grow and t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r had role the b e e n i n a g e n e r o u s and child," financially "affirmatively m o t h e r has that o f f s p r i n g , (1) "has towards father." suspected who openly and support the clearly [has] relationship with financial the for the the 2100277 child." § 26-17-204(a)(5). Moreover, 2 the juvenile court s t a t e d t h a t " [ i ] t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t [ T . J . ] has e s t a b l i s h e d a parent-child relationship with [the The juvenile d e t e r m i n e t h a t T.J. court then child]." goes further, however, to c o u l d n o t be 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 b e c a u s e he was i n c a r c e r a t e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c h i l d ' s conception. presumed In support fatherhood juvenile court, first states evidence paternity was of the decision based almost to reject s o l e l y on t h i s T.J.'s fact, the i n i t s r e s p o n s e t o T . J . ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n , that i t determined presented i n [T.J.]." which that rebutted Secondly, " c l e a r and convincing any p r e s u m p t i o n the juvenile court of states T h e m a i n o p i n i o n r e l i e s on t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t i t was " u n a b l e t o f i n d t h a t [ T . J . w a s ] t h e p r e s u m e d father" under the Act. However, the juvenile court's determination t h a t T . J . was n o t t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r was n o t a f a c t u a l f i n d i n g ; i n s t e a d , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t made a l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n t h a t T . J . was n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f paternity i n § 26-17-204(a)(5). I believe that the juvenile c o u r t ' s n u m e r o u s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s , w h i c h w e r e made a f t e r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e t e s t i m o n y and r e s o l v e d c o n f l i c t s i n t h e e v i d e n c e and which a r e s e t out supra, form t h e b a s i s f o r o n l y one p o s s i b l e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n - - t h a t T . J . i s t h e c h i l d ' s presumed f a t h e r ; t h u s , I am n o t r e w e i g h i n g e v i d e n c e or u s u r p i n g the role of the juvenile court. I am f i r m l y convinced, i n l a r g e part because of the language used i nthe juvenile court's order and by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t in i t s r e s p o n s e t o t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n , t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a s committed e r r o r i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n of the law. 2 15 2100277 that i t "found t h a t i t would be intellectually presume [ T . J . ] t o be t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d , dishonest to considering e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , " and e x p l i c i t l y d e c l a r e s i t s r e l i a n c e the O f f i c i a l Act, which assume a untrue." Comment t o S e c t i o n 607 of the Uniform the on Parentage s t a t e s t h a t " [ i ] t i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the law t o presumption known by a l l those concerned to be § 26-17-607, U n i f o r m Comment. S e c t i o n 607 of the Uniform Act reads: " ( a ) E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) , a p r o c e e d i n g b r o u g h t by a p r e s u m e d f a t h e r , t h e mother, or another i n d i v i d u a l t o a d j u d i c a t e the p a r e n t a g e o f a c h i l d h a v i n g a p r e s u m e d f a t h e r must be commenced n o t l a t e r t h a n two y e a r s a f t e r t h e b i r t h of the c h i l d . "(b) A proceeding seeking to disprove f a t h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a c h i l d and c h i l d ' s p r e s u m e d f a t h e r may be m a i n t a i n e d a t time i f the c o u r t determines t h a t : the the any " ( 1 ) the presumed father and the mother of the c h i l d n e i t h e r c o h a b i t e d nor engaged i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h each other during the probable time of c o n c e p t i o n ; and " ( 2 ) the presumed f a t h e r never h e l d o u t t h e c h i l d as h i s own." Even assuming that, under the Uniform openly Parentage Act, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o p e r m i t the mother t o r e b u t T.J.'s 16 2100277 presumption decision was i n the present Alabama than i t i s o f no case. abundantly Section c l e a r : "This from (2002)." The comment goes Section Ex p a r t e 607 607 Presse, section further Once t h e p r e s u m e d parentage, 607(a) then an a c t i o n i s substantially Parentage A c t to explain that Alabama 554 So. 2d 406 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) [ , ] a n d 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 therein. of the Uniform of the Uniform i t s progeny that favor maintaining unit to the The A l a b a m a Comment t o § 26-17-607 make t h i s different "follows consequence 3 has n o t adopted Parentage Act. more proper, father ceases that was developed to persist i n h i s c a n be b r o u g h t . " Section 26-17- reads: "(a) E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) , a p r e s u m e d f a t h e r may b r i n g an a c t i o n t o disprove p a t e r n i t y a t any t i m e . I f t h e presumed 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 o f a c h i l d , n e i t h e r t h e mother n o r any o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l may m a i n t a i n an a c t i o n t o d i s p r o v e p a t e r n i t y . " I q u e s t i o n whether under the Uniform Parentage A c t the mother would have been p e r m i t t e d t o d i s p r o v e T.J.'s presumed fatherhood because that a c t c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s not only evidence o f t h e u n l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r was i n v o l v e d i n the c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e c h i l d b u t a l s o p r o o f t h a t " t h e presumed f a t h e r n e v e r o p e n l y h e l d t h e c h i l d o u t as h i s own," w h i c h would not comport w i t h t h e f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s made b y t h e j u v e n i l e court i n t h i s case. 3 17 2100277 (Emphasis added.) I note that the j u v e n i l e court, the fact that " i t i s u n l i k e l y that child the i n i t s order, f o c u s e s on [the father] b e l i e v e d this t o be h i s ' n a t u r a l ' c h i l d when he was i n c a r c e r a t e d a t likely believed time that parentage of conception." T.J's knowledge somehow prevented I f the j u v e n i l e of h i s lack him from presumption under § 26-17-204(a)(5), not b e l i e v e t h a t s u b s e c t i o n establish (a)(5) of court biological establishing I must d i s a g r e e . the I do requires t h a t , i n order t o t h e presumption under t h a t subsection, a man must b e l i e v e that the c h i l d i s h i s " n a t u r a l " c h i l d , i . e . , that the child i s hisbiological offspring. I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e use o f t h e word " a s " i n t h e phrase " o p e n l y h o l d s o u t t h e c h i l d as h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d " not e n t i r e l y c l e a r i n meaning. context with i s perhaps However, I r e a d " a s " i n t h i s as m e a n i n g " i n t h e way o r manner t h a t , " " i n a c c o r d a n c e what or t h e way character, condition, Dictionary 71 ( 1 1 t h or role ed. 2003). d e f i n e d as " t o r e p r e s e n t is defined i n which," of." or " i n the Webster's Likewise, Collegiate to "hold t o b e , " i d . a t 592, w h i l e as " t o d e s c r i b e capacity, out," i s "represent" as h a v i n g a s p e c i f i e d c h a r a c t e r o r 18 2100277 quality." I d . a t 1057. Thus, s u b s e c t i o n a p r e s u m p t i o n o f p a t e r n i t y i n a man in the same manner he who (a) (5) openly t r e a t s a would t r e a t h i s b i o l o g i c a l o p e n l y t r e a t s a c h i l d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e way would treat his biological c h i l d as child with i f the "and the f o r the establishes child." 17-204(a)(5) child, a a to mere treats a relationship financial significant biological use the estoppel circumstances interests of to 26-17-204 s t a t e s principles deny requests preserving a support in for § 608 genetic child's ties to in Such 26- a Act. that "courts appropriate testing the § parental connection. f i n d s g e n e r o u s s u p p o r t i n comments t o t h e U n i f o r m Comment t o § the biological R e a d i n t h i s way, promote who that a father r o l e of h i s parental child child, openly e m o t i o n a l and § 26-17-204(a)(5). over who significant The may or assumed t h e providing serves relationship reading c h i l d had c h i l d by establishes in presumed the or a c k n o w l e d g e d f a t h e r who o p e n l y h e l d h i m s e l f o u t as t h e c h i l d ' s father whether regardless father." of he is in fact the Thus, i t i s c l e a r t h a t a p r e s u m p t i o n u n d e r § genetic 26-17- 2 0 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) a r i s i n g f r o m a man's d e c i s i o n t o h o l d t h e c h i l d as his own o f f s p r i n g i s not automatically 19 t r u m p e d by out proof 2100277 that he could not possibly be the "genetic father." e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e U n i f o r m Comment t o A l a . Code 1975, 608, further bolsters under § 26-17-204(a)(5) establish the the conclusion does n o t presumption to that require the the man actually believe indeed, the b i o l o g i c a l or g e n e t i c f a t h e r of the An § 26-17¬ presumption seeking that he child. to is, That comment r e a d s : "This section incorporates the doctrine of p a t e r n i t y by e s t o p p e l , w h i c h e x t e n d s e q u a l l y t o a c h i l d w i t h a p r e s u m e d f a t h e r o r an a c k n o w l e d g e d f a t h e r . In a p p r o p r i a t e circumstances, the c o u r t may deny g e n e t i c t e s t i n g and f i n d the presumed or a c k n o w l e d g e d f a t h e r t o be t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . The most common s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h e s t o p p e l should be a p p l i e d a r i s e s when a man knows t h a t a c h i l d i s n o t , o r may n o t be, h i s g e n e t i c c h i l d , b u t t h e man has a f f i r m a t i v e l y a c c e p t e d h i s r o l e as [ t h e ] c h i l d ' s f a t h e r and b o t h t h e m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d have r e l i e d on t h a t a c c e p t a n c e . S i m i l a r l y , t h e man may have r e l i e d on t h e m o t h e r ' s a c c e p t a n c e o f him as the c h i l d ' s f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r i s t h e n e s t o p p e d t o deny t h e man's p r e s u m e d p a r e n t a g e . " (Emphasis added.) B e c a u s e my c o m p o r t s w i t h what I b e l i e v e Act -- despite maintaining t o be significant the l a c k of a g e n e t i c j u v e n i l e court's reading of § 26-17-204(a)(5) a p r i m a r y purpose of parent-child l i n k -- the relationships I cannot agree w i t h the a p p a r e n t b e l i e f t h a t T.J.'s knowledge of h i s l i k e l y l a c k of a b i o l o g i c a l connection 20 w i t h t h e c h i l d somehow 2100277 p r e v e n t s him f r o m e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t o w h i c h he is entitled. Because the j u v e n i l e c o u r t found t h a t the evidence at hearing e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t T.J. father-child emotionally birth as relationship with and i f knowledge had financially she that were she his likely d e v e l o p e d and the child supported biological was not, j u v e n i l e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t T.J. 26-17-204(a)(5) Act. At thus, that point, 26-17-607(a) presumption required and, to from of was paternity. dismiss the mother's since her despite his that the the requirements of § father was mother Instead, had child a presumed the he conclude the j u v e n i l e c o u r t allowing that child I met maintained a and the the the under p r o h i b i t e d by to rebut to § T.J.'s j u v e n i l e court action the establish was the c h i l d ' s p a t e r n i t y i n s o f a r as i t s o u g h t t o e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y i n J.H. would, and i n s o f a r as i t s o u g h t g e n e t i c therefore, grant mandamus r e q u e s t e d by Bryan, J . , the petition T.J. concurs. 21 t e s t i n g t o do and issue the so. I writ of

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.