194 So. 3d 950
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- Child born April 9, 2013; mother A.L.A.; T.E. moved in before birth, signed paternity acknowledgement, is listed on birth certificate, lives with and raises the child, and provides emotional and financial support.
- C.E.G. had a prior dating relationship with A.L.A.; DNA test (Oct. 25, 2013) showed 99% probability that C.E.G. is the biological father.
- Despite the DNA result, T.E. continued to hold out the child as his own. C.E.G. sued (Nov. 22, 2013) to establish paternity and obtain custody/visitation.
- Trial court dismissed C.E.G.’s complaint under the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act (AUPA): § 26-17-204(a)(5) (holding-out presumption) and § 26-17-607(a) (bar to challenging a presumed father who persists in his status).
- On appeal, C.E.G. argued facial and as-applied violations of substantive and procedural due process and raised an equal-protection claim and an ‘‘equitable adoption’’ argument.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the challenged AUPA provisions constitutional and that C.E.G. lacks a right to displace a persisting presumed father under those statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§ 26-17-204(a)(5) & 26-17-607(a) violate substantive due process by denying biological father the right to establish paternity when a presumed father persists | C.E.G.: statute unconstitutionally deprives him of a fundamental right to establish biological paternity and parental rights | State/parties: statute rationally protects child stability and family relationships; presumed father status has public-policy priority | Not a fundamental right; rational-basis applies; provisions are rational and constitutional |
| Whether §§ 26-17-204(a)(5) & 26-17-607(a) violate procedural due process by providing no procedure to challenge presumed father | C.E.G.: lacks any procedure to vindicate liberty interest in relationship with child | Defendants: legislature substantively precluded displacing a persisting presumed father; procedural challenge inappropriate when substantive rule stands | Procedural-due-process claim fails because the statute creates substantive bar to displacing presumed father |
| Whether application here (cohabiting but unmarried presumed father) renders statute irrational or arbitrary | C.E.G.: holding-out presumption based on cohabitation is unstable and unjust in nonmarital context | Defendants: AUPA does not require marriage; holding-out presumption serves child stability regardless of marital status | Application is rational; statute valid as applied; no procedural remedy required |
| Whether trial court’s dismissal amounts to adoption by estoppel / equitable adoption | C.E.G.: decision effectively treats T.E. as having adopted child by estoppel | Defendants: adoption-by-estoppel doctrine inapplicable because parental relationship here is recognized by AUPA presumptions | Court rejects equitable-adoption argument; AUPA controls and dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Presse, 554 So.2d 406 (Ala. 1989) (held man lacked standing to displace a presumed father; emphasized protecting family stability over biological claims)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (U.S. 1989) (U.S. Supreme Court reasoning that biological tie does not automatically displace a marital presumption of paternity)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental interest in care, custody, and control of children is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Ex parte T.J., 89 So.3d 744 (Ala. 2012) (Alabama Supreme Court: biology does not prevent a presumption of paternity under § 26-17-204(a)(5); family relationship weightier)
- Ex parte C.A.P., 683 So.2d 1010 (Ala. 1996) (legislative objectives favor child psychological stability and legitimacy over pure biological claims)