R.W. v. T.J., 89 So. 3d 744

Maternal grandmother sought custody; T.J. sought custody and alleged paternity; mother sought genetic testing to determine paternity; juvenile court granted testing based on non-biological factors; testing order challenged as error; Court of Civil Appeals denied mandamus for lack of juvenile-record transcript; Alabama Supreme Court granted mandamus to review but remanded for proper legal application.
T.J. contends he is presumed father under §26-17-204(a)(5) by receiving the child into his home and holding out the child as his and providing support, regardless of biology.
Trial court found that T.J. was not the biological father and concluded §26-17-204(a)(5) did not apply, leading to an order for genetic testing.
Court of Civil Appeals noted need for transcript to evaluate if T.J. held the child out as his natural child and if that evidence supported §26-17-204(a)(5).
Alabama Supreme Court held the presumption under §26-17-204(a)(5) is a substantive rule of law, not merely an evidentiary presumption, and the trial court erred by applying a biological-father-focused analysis; ordered vacatur of the genetic-testing order and remanded for proper proceedings consistent with correct legal principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §26-17-204(a)(5) can presume paternity despite non-biological status	T.J. argues he is presumed father under (a)(5) by relationship	Court below treated (a)(5) as rebuttable; required biological father status	Yes; (a)(5) can apply based on relationship, not biology.
Whether the trial court erred by treating the presumption as evidentiary	Presumed-father status is substantive and cannot be rebutted by non-biological evidence	Trial court used evidence of non-biological paternity to rebut the presumption	Yes; trial court erred in treating it as rebuttable evidence.
Whether the genetic-testing order should be vacated or remanded	Because of legal error, testing order should be vacated and remanded	Record insufficient to determine alternatives; testing may stand	Vacate the order and remand for proper proceedings; if (a)(5) proven, vacate testing.

Ex parte Presse, 554 So.2d 406 (Ala. 1989) (establishes weight of marital presumption and protected family relationships)
Ex parte C.A.P., 683 So.2d 1010 (Ala. 1996) (limits standing to challenge presumed father’s status while presumption persists)
Ex parte Nall, 879 So.2d 541 (Ala.2003) (mandamus standard and interlocutory-review framework)
Ex parte BOC Group, Inc., 823 So.2d 1270 (Ala.2001) (mandamus review and propriety of interlocutory relief)
Ex parte A.M.P., 997 So.2d 1008 (Ala.2008) (mandamus review of interim order in family law context)
Ex parte D.J.B., 859 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (mandamus review of nonfinal order in paternity context)
Hooten v. Hooten, 754 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (standing rules regarding presumed father)