State ex Rel. A.T. v. E.W

5 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte State ex Rel. A.T

    695 So. 2d 624 (Ala. 1997)   Cited 7 times

    "The trial court in the present case noted in its order that E. W. was indigent when he signed the admission and waived his right to a blood test, that he did so because he could not afford to pay for a blood test and was not informed that he was entitled to have tests conducted despite his inability to pay for the tests, and that he was not represented by counsel."State ex rel. A. T. v. E. W., 695 So.2d 619, 622 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995). On April 6, 1994, the mother petitioned to modify the child support order that had been initially entered in the case.

  2. R.L.T. v. S.V.P

    703 So. 2d 1002 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997)   Cited 2 times
    In R.L.T. v. S.V.P., 703 So.2d 1002 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997), a father moved the court to order DNA testing "pursuant to Section 26-17A-1" to assist him in disproving his paternity.

    In those two cases, this court was persuaded to allow relief under § 26-17A-1 because of the following circumstances: (1) the wife in each case had previously admitted that the husband was not the child's father; (2) blood tests had been conducted; and (3) the results of the tests were available to the court. In State ex rel. A. T. v. E.W., 695 So.2d 619, 622 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995), this court affirmed the trial court's decision to reopen a paternity case after the father asserted nonpaternity as a defense to the mother's petition to modify the initial custody agreement; this court stated: "The trial court . . . noted in its order that E.W. was indigent when he signed the admission and waived his right to a blood test, that he did so because he could not afford to pay for a blood test and was not informed that he was entitled to have tests conducted despite his inability to pay for the tests, and that he was not represented by counsel.

  3. R.P. v. State ex Rel. M.G.R

    963 So. 2d 88 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times
    In R.P., the Madison Juvenile Court adjudicated R.P. to be the father of C.R. One year later, R.P. filed a motion in the juvenile court requesting DNA testing to assist him in proving that he was not C.R.'s father.

    " In State v. E.W., 695 So.2d 619 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995), aff'd, Ex parte State ex rel A.T., 695 So.2d 624 (Ala. 1997), the State, on behalf of the mother, filed a petition to modify child support. The father counter-claimed, disclaiming paternity, requesting blood testing and seeking to reopen the case pursuant to § 26-17A-1, Ala. Code 1975. The State argued that § 26-17A-1 was unconstitutionally vague "because there is some dispute as to whether a person previously adjudicated to be the father is required to present scientific evidence when he petitions the court to reopen his paternity case or whether the court may order tests to produce that scientific evidence.

  4. State ex Rel. Spizzirri v. Speakman

    730 So. 2d 187 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    Our Alabama Supreme Court recently released Ex parte State ex rel. A.T., 695 So.2d 624 (Ala. 1997). In that case, the court affirmed this court's decision in State ex rel. A.T. v. E.W., 695 So.2d 619 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995) In Ex parte A.T., the supreme court held that a man who had admitted paternity in a paternity proceeding and had never appealed could, pursuant to § 26-17A-1, reopen and void the paternity adjudication if he produced scientific evidence that he was not the biological father. The court stated:

  5. State ex Rel. G.M.F. v. W.F.F

    728 So. 2d 144 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    Since that time, in a case involving § 26-17A-1, this court has held that a delay of 11 years after the initial adjudication of paternity before seeking Rule 60 (b) relief was not an unreasonable delay. State ex rel. A.T., 695 So.2d 619 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995). See also, Ex parte State ex rel. McKinney, 567 So.2d 366 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990) (motion for Rule 60 (b) relief filed 12 years after initial adjudication of paternity was filed within a reasonable time).