(a) Upon petition of the defendant in a paternity proceeding where the defendant has been declared the legal father, the case shall be reopened if there is scientific evidence presented by the defendant that he is not the father. The court shall admit into evidence any scientific test recognized by the court that has been conducted in accordance with established scientific principles or the court may order a blood test, or a Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid test of the mother, father, and child. Whenever the court orders a test and any of the persons to be tested refuse to submit to the test, the fact shall be disclosed at the trial, unless good cause is shown.
(b) The test shall be made by a qualified expert approved by the court. The expert may be called by the court or any party as a witness to testify to the test results and shall be subject to cross-examination by the parties. The test results may be admitted into evidence. If more than one test is performed and the results are conflicting, none of the test results shall be admissible as evidence of paternity or nonpaternity.
(c) Compensation of the expert witness shall be paid by the petitioner.
(d) In the event the child has been adopted the matter of paternity may not be reopened under this chapter.
(Acts 1994, No. 94-633, p. 1177, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case:
Ex Parte Jenkins, 723 So. 2d 649 (Ala. 1998).
Ex Parte Jenkins, 723 So. 2d 649 (Ala. 1998).
· cites it 90× “The trial court reopened the judgment of paternity, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17A-1; entered an order finding the previously adjudicated father not to be the child's biological father; and set aside the earlier order requiring him to pay child support.”
Ex Parte State, 960 So. 2d 740 (Ala. 2006).
· cites it 6× “, [4] and *743 "the case shall be reopened if there is scientific evidence presented by the defendant that he is not the father.”
Ex Parte Conway, 720 So. 2d 889 (Ala. 1998).
· cites it 17× “Although I dissented from that part of the Jenkins opinion holding that § 26-17A-1, Ala.Code 1975, could not be applied to judgments that became final before the adoption of that statute, I concur in the result in this case.”
State ex rel. C.T.G. v. M.A.B., 723 So. 2d 649 (Ala. 1998).
· cites it 88× “The trial court reopened the judgment of paternity, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17A-1; entered an order finding the previously adjudicated father not to be the child’s biological father; and set aside the earlier order requiring him to pay child support.”
State Ex Rel. A.T. v. E.W., 695 So. 2d 619 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
· cites it 14× “This case involves the reopening of a paternity adjudication under § 26-17A-1 of the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act, Ala.”
State Ex Rel. GMF v. WFF, 728 So. 2d 144 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
· cites it 15× “It does not appear to me that this case falls within the purview of Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17A-1. That section seems to permit a defendant in a paternity proceeding to reopen the case under certain circumstances.”
R.P. v. State ex rel. M.G.R., 963 So. 2d 88 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
· cites it 15× “” The issue presented for review is whether prior denial of a motion for genetic testing precludes a subsequent petition to reopen a paternity judgment pursuant to § 26-17A-1, Ala.Code 1975, under the doctrine of res judicata? We answer that question in the negative and reverse.”
Price v. Clayton, 18 So. 3d 370 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Clayton I ) does not contain Clayton's Application for Admission to the Alabama State Bar (hereinafter "the bar application"), the record contains numerous references indicating that the bar application was central to the dispute regarding certain aspects of Clayton's claims…”
State ex rel. G.M.F. v. W.F.F., 728 So. 2d 144 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
· cites it 15× “filed a renewed petition for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), claiming that he was entitled to reopen the matter of paternity based upon the newly enacted legislative act appearing at § 26-17A-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, which allows a paternity case to be reopened if there is…”
State ex rel. A. T. v. E. W., 695 So. 2d 624 (Ala. 1997).
· cites it 10× “This Court, on original deliverance, reversing the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, held that the trial court had erred in reopening the paternity issue pursuant to § 26-17A-1, Ala.Code 1975. 1 The defendant in the original paternity proceeding filed an application for…”
S.W.M. v. D.W.M., 723 So. 2d 1271 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “On its face, § 26-17A-1 plainly affords a limited right of reopening a paternity case only to a “defendant” who “has been declared the legal father” of a child.”
S.C.G. v. J.G.Y., 794 So. 2d 399 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
· cites it 8× “’s motion, the mother moved the court to treat her complaint as a petition to reopen a paternity case based on scientific evidence, pursuant to § 26-17A-1. 1 The circuit court denied the mother’s request and granted J.”
— Ala. Code § 26-17A-1(a) — 11 cases
Ex Parte Jenkins, 723 So. 2d 649 (Ala. 1998).
“The trial court reopened the judgment of paternity, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17A-1; entered an order finding the previously adjudicated father not to be the child's biological father; and set aside the earlier order requiring him to pay child support.”
Ex Parte State, 960 So. 2d 740 (Ala. 2006).
“, [4] and *743 "the case shall be reopened if there is scientific evidence presented by the defendant that he is not the father.”
R.P. v. State ex rel. M.G.R., 963 So. 2d 88 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
“” The issue presented for review is whether prior denial of a motion for genetic testing precludes a subsequent petition to reopen a paternity judgment pursuant to § 26-17A-1, Ala.Code 1975, under the doctrine of res judicata? We answer that question in the negative and reverse.”
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.