interests in the adjudication of his paternity were not implicated, and the appointment of a guardian ad litem was not required. “If the child were a party in this case, the requirements of the Code section [§ 26-17-11] would apply and the child would be required to be represented by a guardian [ad] litem or other counsel. However, because this child was not made a party to this action, the trial court was not required to appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.” E.J.B. v. State ex rel. AC., 669 So.2d 992 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court of Alabama has held that fundamental principles of fairness and due process are violated when a child is prevented from taking part in the determination of his or her paternity. See Ex parte Martin, 565 So.2d 1 (Ala.1989) (<HOLDING>). Further, in a paternity action where the
holding that where the trial court denies a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem in a child support case the order is unappealable holding that adjudication of paternity in divorce decree is not binding on the child holding that a paternity determination in which the child is not made a party and is not represented by a guardian ad litem is not binding on the child holding in syllabus point 4 that when a childs mental health records are sought to be produced and the child is not directly represented in the proceeding the child should be joined as a party and a guardian ad litem must be appointed by the circuit court to protect the childs rights holding that courtappointed guardian ad litem for child in child custody dispute did not act under color of state law