dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s ruling in Division 1 and I also join Justice Carley’s dissent with respect to Division 2 and the reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I write separately to suggest that Ms. Butler has an additional *571remedy against Mr. Turner for back child support under the rationale of Weaver v. Chester.8 In that case, the Court of Appeals held that in a paternity action a mother may recover back support from the father for the period prior to the adjudication of paternity, if she was supporting the child without public assistance. This holding appears unassailable and would entitle Ms. Butler to bring an action for support for the period of 1984 when the child was born to 1993 when Ms. Butler first sought and received public assistance funds.
The Court of Appeals also held in Weaver that the mother would be limited in her recovery of back support to amounts she actually expended on behalf of the child and would not be entitled to back support on the basis of the father’s ability to pay. Whether this holding is applicable in a case in which the father actively conceals his whereabouts or his assets to avoid liability for support is an open question.
195 Ga. App. 471 (393 SE2d 715) (1990).