Court Opinion

ID: 7764928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 20:43:10.661928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:38.529830
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result reached by the main opinion. I write separately only to note the following: The main opinion references a potential issue relating to § 95 of the Alabama Constitution. Judge Thompson responds to this reference in his dissent, discussing our Supreme Court's holding in Ex parte F.P., [Ms. 1002146, March 21, 2003] 857 So.2d 125 (Ala. 2003). Among other things, our Supreme Court stated in Ex parte F.P. that "the father's rights had vested before the passage of Act No. 2002-417[, Ala. Act. 2002,] and[, therefore,] that Act cannot be applied retroactively as to him" under Article IV, § 95, Ala. Const. of 1901. 857 So.2d at 138. The Supreme Court also stated in Ex parte F.P.: "[W]e do not address the arguments concerning the constitutionality of the substantive provisions of the Act in proceedings where § 95 is not at issue; we leave those questions for another day." 857 So.2d at 138.
There may well be potential issues concerning the retroactive nature of the 2002 amendments to the Putative Father Registry Act; however, those issues have not been raised and I therefore would not address them.