descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

H.O. v. C.S.

Citations: 586 So. 2d 23; 1991 WL 108381Docket: 2900238

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; June 21, 1991; Alabama; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
In this paternity case initiated by the State of Alabama, the court sought to establish paternity and enforce child support for C.S. The lawsuit involved two potential fathers: C.D.S., the presumed father, and H.R.O., the appellant. After a hearing, a default judgment was issued against H.R.O., declaring him the father of the child. H.R.O. appealed for a trial de novo, where both parties and the child, represented by a guardian ad litem, were present. The trial court confirmed H.R.O. as the father, ordering him to pay $112.00 monthly in child support and acknowledging an arrearage of $1,442.00.

H.R.O. contested the trial court's decision on grounds of reversible error, arguing that adjudicating him as the biological father without the child being a party to the case illegitimized the child without consent. He referenced the case Ex parte Martin, asserting that a judgment that affects a child's legitimacy must involve the child as a party or at least be represented by a guardian ad litem. The court, however, noted that in this instance, the child was indeed represented by a guardian ad litem, fulfilling the requirements set forth in Ex parte Martin.

The court acknowledged the provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act, which permits a mother to file paternity actions against a putative father and noted that while the presumption of paternity exists for husbands under Alabama law, the mother can provide clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption. In this case, evidence including a blood test and testimony sufficiently rebutted the presumption of paternity.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, confirming H.R.O. as the biological father and upholding the child support order. The decision was concurred by Judges Robertson and Russell.