Ex parte Z.W.E., [Ms. 1190748, Mar. 26, 2021], ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2021). A per curiam plurality opinion (Mendheim and Stewart, JJ., concur; Bolin and Sellers, JJ., concur specially; Parker, C.J., and Wise and Bryan, JJ., concur in the result; Shaw and Mitchell, JJ., dissent) concludes on certiorari review that “[t]he Court of Civil Appeals did not err in concluding that the plain language of the AUPA does not include unborn children within its definition of ‘child.’ Accordingly, the alleged father cannot be considered a presumed father under § 26-17-204(a)(5) and, thus, does not have the capacity to challenge the husband’s status as a presumed father of the child.” Ms. *20.
