Because a juvenile court is a court of limited jurisdiction, an appellate court cannot presume that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over an action; rather, every fact essential to its jurisdiction must affirmatively appear of record.See H.A.A. v, B.J.J., 368 So. 3d 876,—(Ala. Civ. App. 2022).The dissent suggests that the juvenile court could have adjudicated M.L.R. the legal father of the child in the earlier proceeding in which it had vested the custodian with custody of the child.

H.A.A. v. B.J.J., 368 So.3d 876, 882 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022).

Because a juvenile court is a court of limited jurisdiction, an appellate court cannot presume that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over an action; rather, every fact essential to its jurisdiction must affirmatively appear of record. See H.A.A. v. B.J.J., 368 So. 3d 876, — (Ala. Civ. App. 2022). Because the evidence did not indicate that S.R.E. was the legal father of N.A.T., the juvenile court acted outside its subject-matter jurisdiction insofar as it purported to terminate S.R.E.’s parental rights to N.A.T., and, therefore, that portion of its judgment is void.

When, however, more than one man qualifies as a presumed father, § 26-17-204(b) requires a juvenile court to allow the paternity action to proceed for the purpose of determining which of the two presumed fathers shall be adjudicated the legal father of the child based on the factors set forth therein. See also H.A.A. v. B.J.J., 368 So. 3d 876,—(Ala. Civ. App. 2022) (recognizing that, when two men are both presumed fathers, § 26-17-204(b) applies). Admittedly, this court has not consistently followed the reasoning in Ex parte Kimbrell, see, e.g., R.D. v. S.S., 309 So. 3d 146 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020) (requiring biological father of child at issue to prove that husband of mother was not persisting in a claim of paternity before allowing evidentiary proceeding under § 26-17-204(b)); J.O.J. v. R.M., 205 So. 3d 726 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (denying appellant an opportunity to prove his status as a presumed father and to an evidentiary hearing under § 26-17-204(b) on the ground that the husband of the mother in that case was persisting in his status as legal father of child at issue), but the weight of authority provides that, in cases involving two or more presumed fathers, § 26-17-204(b) controls and not § 26-17-607(a).