262 So. 3d 651
Ala. Civ. App.2018Background
- Child born Dec. 2010; mother lived with R.D. (presumed father), who signed paternity affidavit and is on birth certificate; he has lived with and supported the child since birth.
- In early 2014 D.I. (alleged biological father) learned he might be biological father, obtained DNA test, then he and his parents visited the child briefly; presumed father stopped visits and initiated proceedings.
- Alleged biological father filed to establish paternity in juvenile court, lost, appealed to circuit court, and also raised an as-applied constitutional challenge to Ala. Code § 26-17-204(a)(5).
- Presumed father moved to dismiss under Ala. Code § 26-17-607(a) (bars others from disputing paternity if presumed father persists in status); circuit court granted dismissal; appeal followed.
- Appellate court found presumed father met § 26-17-204(a)(5) (held out child, provided emotional/financial support, on birth certificate, present at birth) and persisted; therefore § 26-17-607(a) barred alleged biological father’s action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.I.) | Defendant's Argument (R.D./Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether presumed father persisted in status under § 26-17-204(a)(5) | Permitting visits with alleged biological family shows he did not persist | He continued to hold out, support, and parent the child; visits do not negate persistence | Presumed father persisted; visits did not defeat presumption |
| Whether alleged biological father may bring an action to establish paternity despite § 26-17-607(a) | His suit was to establish his paternity, not to disprove presumed father, so § 26-17-607(a) should not bar it | § 26-17-602(3) standing is expressly limited by § 26-17-607; if presumed father persists others are barred | Dismissal proper; § 26-17-607(a) precludes action by others when presumed father persists |
| Whether interpretation strips § 26-17-204(b) and § 26-17-607(b) of effect | Allowing proof of biological paternity in one action would preserve those provisions’ operation | § 26-17-607(b) applies when a presumed father seeks to disprove his presumption; § 26-17-204(b) applies only when competing presumptions arise | No statutory conflict; both provisions retain distinct fields of operation |
| Whether application of AUPA violates alleged biological father’s constitutional rights | State deprived him of fundamental parental rights by barring his action | Courts and statutes protect family stability; unwed biological link alone does not trigger fundamental right without demonstrated parental commitment | Constitutional challenge inadequately briefed and contrary to precedent; waived/ rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Presse, 554 So.2d 406 (Ala. 1989) (endorses protecting family unit and integrity of father-child relationship under AUPA)
- Ex parte T.J., 89 So.3d 744 (Ala. 2012) (biology does not preclude holding-out presumption under § 26-17-204(a)(5))
- D.F.H. v. J.D.G., 125 So.3d 146 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (presumed father may retain status despite knowledge of nonbiological link)
- Ex parte C.A.P., 683 So.2d 1010 (Ala. 1996) (interest in biological link outweighed by AUPA objectives favoring child stability)
- M.J.M. v. R.M.B., 204 So.3d 366 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (similar facts; dismissal under § 26-17-607(a) affirmed)
- C.E.G. v. A.L.A., 194 So.3d 950 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (holding-out presumption not lesser because father unmarried; statutory parity among presumptions)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (unwed biological father’s constitutional protection depends on demonstrated commitment to parenting)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care and custody, context-dependent)