B.N.P. ex rel. J.F. v. D.M.P.

I concur in the result' reached by the main opinion. I write separately to address B.N.P.’s argument that Floyd v. Floyd, 701 So.2d 1151 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), stands for the proposition that “ ‘a matter of paternity does not have to be determined exclusively under the [Alabama Uniform Parentage Act].’ ” 701 So.2d at 1153. The main opinion distinguishes Floyd only on the ground that the issue of paternity was not raised in the divorce action in the present case. My disagreement with B.N.P.’s argument is more substantive.

The foregoing quotation is an accurate quotation from this court’s opinion…