V.L.T. v. C.T.T.

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

This is the second time this case has been before this court. We reversed this case previously because the trial court based its judgment on an “irrefutable presumption” of paternity. See S.T. v. C.T.T., 571 So.2d 1168 (Ala.Civ.App.1990), for the background facts of this case.

On remand, after another ore tenus proceeding and a post-judgment motion, the trial court found:

“that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that was clear and convincing to overcome the presumption that [V.T.], who was lawfully married to the defendant, [C.T.T.], at all times…