260 So. 3d 833
Ala. Civ. App.2018Background
- Parties: Husband (L.J.B.) and Wife (G.R.B.) married 1995; no biological children together. The child (G.P.B.) was born in 2004 to the wife's daughter, R.H.
- At birth the husband signed an affidavit/acknowledgment listing himself as the child’s father to keep the child out of foster care; the husband and wife raised the child and the child used the husband’s surname.
- Husband later moved out and ceased contact; he sued for divorce in 2017 and sought a judicial declaration that he is not the child’s father and requested DNA testing. He had not attempted to withdraw the paternity acknowledgment before filing suit.
- Wife counterclaimed and argued the husband should be estopped from denying paternity under Ala. Code § 26-17-608 because he acted as the child’s father and disestablishment would harm the child.
- Trial court found the husband was not the legal father, emphasizing that the child and the community knew he was not the biological father, and therefore would not be harmed by a finding of nonpaternity; the court ordered no child support from the husband.
- Wife appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied § 26-17-608 by focusing on the child’s knowledge of nonbiological status rather than the actual parent-child relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied estoppel and allowed disproof of paternity under Ala. Code § 26-17-608 | Trial court misapplied § 26-17-608 and improperly focused on the child’s knowledge of nonbiological status rather than statutory factors about the parent-child relationship | Husband says he is not the biological father, signed acknowledgment only to prevent foster placement, and should not be required to support a non-biological child | Reversed: trial court misapplied § 26-17-608; remanded to apply the statutory factors focusing on the actual parent-child relationship and equities |
| Whether a child’s knowledge that an acknowledged/presumed father is not biological defeats estoppel | Wife: child’s awareness is not a controlling factor under § 26-17-608; focus must be on actual relationship and potential harm | Husband: child knew he was not biological and public knowledge eliminates claimed harm | Court: child’s knowledge alone is not dispositive; statutory factors control and emphasis should be on the nature of the parent-child relationship and potential harm from disestablishment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte T.J., 89 So.3d 744 (Ala. 2012) (biological ties less important than parent-child relationship for child stability)
- Zadori v. Zadori, 443 Pa. Super. 192 (Pa. Super. 1995) (paternity by estoppel where man knew biological status but held out and supported child)
- Lynn v. Powell, 809 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (estoppel where husband publicly accepted father role despite knowledge of nonpaternity)
- J.R.A. v. G.D.A., 314 S.W.3d 764 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010) (refused estoppel where child knew presumed father was not biological)
- T.P.D. v. A.C.D., 981 P.2d 116 (Alaska 1999) (equitable-estoppel elements include child ignorance of true facts)