R.W. v. T.J.

My understanding of the reasoning employed by the trial court is different than the understanding contemplated by the analysis in the main opinion. Specifically, the analysis offered in the main opinion appears to contemplate that the trial judge entertained evidence of who the biological father might be because she thought it necessary for a man to be a biological father in order to maintain his position as a “presumed father” under § 26-17-204, Ala.Code 1975. I do not read her order in this manner. Instead, I read her order— and her explanatory brief to this Court — to indicate that she was…