Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 26-17-1 (2026)

Short Title.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Repealed by Act 2008-376, p. 666, §1, effective January 1, 2009.

(Acts 1984, No. 84-244, p. 375, §1.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96 cases, 1985–2015 · leading case: Ex Parte Univ. of South Alabama, 541 So. 2d 535 (Ala. 1989).
Ex Parte Univ. of South Alabama, 541 So. 2d 535 (Ala. 1989). · cites it 6× “" Alabama's Uniform Parentage Act (Ala.Code 1975, §§ 26-17-1 to 26-17-21). I recognize that the law imposes on a father both a legal and a moral obligation to care for his minor children, and that in the ordinary case a father can be required to pay for "necessaries" that are…”
Ex Parte Jenkins, 723 So. 2d 649 (Ala. 1998). · cites it 3× “375 (codified as amended at Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-1 to -22). Section 26-17-5(a)(1) creates a presumption of paternity between a man and a child born during the man's marriage to the child's mother or born within 300 days after the termination of the marriage.”
Ex Parte Jones, 592 So. 2d 608 (Ala. 1991). · cites it 4× “In fact, we have held that "the ultimate objective of the [Uniform Parentage Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-1 et seq.,] is to promote full equality for all children, *610 be they legitimate or illegitimate.”
Ross v. State of Alabama, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (M.D. Ala. 1998). · cites it 4× “Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated both their substantive and procedural due process rights by failing to follow the mandates of Ala.Code § 26-17-1 et seq. (Pis.’ Mem. in Opp.”
McCoy v. McCoy, 549 So. 2d 53 (Ala. 1989). · cites it 2× “Kellman contends that the trial court erred in not finding that Sarah Hoskins McCoy legitimated her under the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act, Code 1975, § 26-17-1 et seq. Code 1975, § 26-17-2, defines the "parent-child relationship" under this chapter as: "[T]he legal…”
Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Alexander, 640 So. 2d 925 (Ala. 1994). · cites it 2× “1989), which held that, under the facts of that case, the juvenile division or family division of the circuit court, and not the probate court, was *930 the proper forum for determining paternity under the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act ["UPA"], Ala.Code 1975, §§ 26-17-1 to…”
R.K. v. R.J., 843 So. 2d 774 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Thus, even when a child is born out of wedlock, a biological father generally still has a right to bring an action to confirm his paternity of the child, see Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-1 et seq., and, even if primary custody of the child is *783 maintained with the mother, seek the…”
P.G. v. G.H., 857 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “filed a petition pursuant to the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act (“UPA”), Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-1 et seq., 1 requesting that the trial court enter an order declaring him to be the father of P.”
Ex parte L.J., 176 So. 3d 186 (Ala. 2014). · cites it 2× “Section 12-15-115(a)(6) provides that the juvenile court has original jurisdiction over petitions to establish parentage pursuant to the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act, § 26-17-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. Section 12-15-317 of the 2008 AJJA allows a parent to file a petition to…”
S.J.S. v. B.R., 949 So. 2d 941 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “, Ala. Code 1975, § 26-17-1 et seq., while a “putative father” is defined in § 26-10A-2 as “[t]he alleged or reputed father” of a child made the subject of an adoption proceeding.”
Ex Parte JEW, 608 So. 2d 728 (Ala. 1992). · cites it 2× “From those records, the trial court concluded that *730 the 1990 paternity proceeding had not met the requirements of the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-1 et seq. (the "AUPA").”
State ex rel. E.K.D. v. M.R.W., 662 So. 2d 913 (Ala. 1995). · cites it 2× “See Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-1. I do not believe that it was the intent of the Legislature in enacting the five-year limitations period under § 26-17-6(a) to provide putative biological fathers with a shield to avoid their duty to support their children.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.