paternity action). This aspect of Rubright may seem to be in tension with several cases holding that legal fathers whose biological paternity is disestablished should normally be granted only prospective relief from their child support obligations. See, e.g., State, CSED v. Wetherelt, 931 P.2d 383, 387-88 (Alaska 1997). But the tension is more apparent than real: Any potential overlap in child support obligations between a newly-established biological father and a former legal father may be remedied through reimbursement. See Matthews v. Matthews, 739 P.2d 1298, 1299 (Alaska 1987) ("A parent's duty of support encompasses a duty to reimburse other persons who provide the support the parent owes.”) (superceded by rule in other respects). Cf. Smith v. Cole, 553 So.2d 847, 854-55 (La.1989) (<HOLDING>). See also Flanigin v. State, CSED, 946 P.2d
holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity holding biological father responsible under uniform parentage act for back child support notwithstanding stepparents support of child holding that the presumption of legitimacy shifts the burden of persuasion to the putative father to establish that he did not father the child holding that a child born to an intact marriage cannot be the subject of a paternity proceeding brought by a biological father and determining it was fundamental error for the trial court to grant relief pursuant to a nonexistent cause of action recognizing the concept of dual paternity in which a child born into a marriage with a nonbiological father retains a legal parentchild relationship based on presumptive fatherhood for purposes of legitimacy and inheritance while becoming the child of a newlyestablished biological father for purposes of child support