.... ” (emphasis added)). Nor does the child have a vested right in utilizing the Family Law Article paternity provisions to seek support. “[N]o person has a vested right in a particular remedy for enforcement of a right, or in particular modes of procedure, or rules of evidence. The legislature may pass retroactive acts changing, eliminating, or adding remedies, so long as efficacious remedies exist after passage of the act.” 2 Norman J. Singer, Sutherland’s Statutory Construction, supra, § 41.16, at 429 (footnotes omitted). Our holding does not apply to the support already paid by putative fathers and to the arrears they owe in support. Those property rights are already accrued. It would clearly raise problems, particularly in the areas of takings and due 2d 95, 98-101 (Alaska 1999) (<HOLDING>). B. Entitlement to Scientific Testing in
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 that although a putative father had standing to bring a paternity action the action could not proceed and the blood tests could not be ordered unless the trial court determined that the paternity action would serve the best interest of the child holding that a putative father proven not to be the father by blood tests was entitled only to prospective relief under alaskas revisory rule and thus was still liable for child support arrearages 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 the trial court must specifically consider whether it would be in the best interest of the child for the case to proceed before a putative father may be permitted to seek blood tests in an attempt to rebut the presumption of paternity