In Arizona, there is a presumption of paternity if a man is married to the mother within 10 months of the birth, and there is also a presumption of paternity if a DNA test affirms at least a 95% probability of paternity, and there is a presumption of paternity if a man sign the birth certificate of a child born out of wedlock. Any presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, and if there are two or more presumptions that apply, the court is to determine which should take precedence based upon "weightier considerations of policy and logic." Arizona courts routinely find paternity with the biological father, even though the child is born during the mother's marriage to another man -- other states are more reticent about doing that. Whether the Court would reverse course and find the husband to be the father, merely because all three parties are in agreement, is another thing entirely. While I suppose it is theoretically possible, the court would probably need to make specific findings as to how such a ruling would be in the best interests of the child. Of course the biological father could consent to the adoption of the child by the husband (step-parent adoption), and that is routinely done.
Your entire post is premised on the absurd notion that Arizona has laws. I refuse to accept that.
we get to carry guns and stuff too.
In New York (My Goddamn state), a dude tried to rape a woman who was a karate instructor; she beat him severely; then she was sued and lost!
Second you have every right to used anything short of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon in any case.