Alabama Divorce, Custody & Support Info

The Alabama Code and Constitution can be viewed here.

Title 30 (Marital and Domestic Relations) can be viewed here.

Alabama Child Support Guidelines

Alabama Child Support Calculator

Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children(ALCFC)

Alabama Family Rights Association (ALFRA)

Alabama Legal Services Programs

THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE

Alabama Support Groups

al.com

Separated/Divorced Support Group, 8573 U.S. 72 West, Madison, 5-7 p.m., 895-8314 or thebrookdc@yahoo.com.

DivorceCare, Whitesburg Center Hearthside Room, 7600 Whitesburg Drive, 6:30 p.m., child care available, 716-1708 or 355-9502.

Divorce Recovery, Mayfair Church of Christ, 1095 Carl T. Jones Drive, 7 p.m., 880-3596.

The Beginning Experience, a support system for the divorced, separated, or widowed, free child care, Weatherly Heights Baptist Church, 1306 Cannstatt Drive, 6:30 to 9 p.m., 837-8375.

Divorce Care, Asbury United Methodist Church Fellowship Hall, 980 Hughes Road, Madison, 6:30 p.m., free, child care, 837-0365 ext. 109.

DivorceCare, Pulaski Pike Church of God, Press Box Room in the gym, 3912 Pulaski Pike, 7 to 9 p.m., child care provided, 852-5580.

Bill's mandatory joint custody not best for child - Alabama

al.com: Living

What can I say? A child and family psychologist doesn't feel presumptive joint custody is best... could that have anything to do with reduced "evaluations" as a result of such legislation?

I have to wonder, when I read articles of this type, has this person ever lived through divorce - ever been ripped from a parent they are accustomed to seeing everyday to having that person become a 2x a month visitor? I especially like how she alludes to "studies" but fails to cite any. How can we ask children to split time between homes is a legitimate question but why we ask children to "deal with" divorce at such an alarming rate is not....

Excerpts:

In the Alabama legislative session just completed, there was a bill (HB650) before the legislators that, if passed, would mandate joint custody for all divorce cases, except those where one parent can show that the other has been found "guilty, under criminal standards of proof, of a violation of the law which bears directly on the care of the minor child involved."

The bill states that all existing custody orders may be "re-litigated on an expedited basis." This means that all existing divorce settlements could be brought back to court and the custody issue tried again. This bill did not leave chambers this session but will be reintroduced in the fall.

Research studies have shown that children raised in homes with chronic conflict between the parents fare better emotionally after a divorce if the fighting stops. Mandatory joint custody would force parents, who couldn't work together in the first place, to continue interacting. The conflict for the child would not end with the divorce.

The bill coming before the Alabama legislature in the fall would give divorced parents equal say over day-to-day matters such as choosing a doctor, choosing a school, or choosing a church. While it sounds reasonable that both parents should participate in these events and choices in the life of their child, it only works if the parents can agree or can come to a compromise. Many divorces occur precisely because parents cannot agree on these issues. Our courts might be inundated litigating day-to-day parental decisions.

Some joint physical custody arrangements specify that the child resides with each parent every other week. Few adults would choose to live like this, yet we ask our children to do so. In the few cases where the parents agree to switch residences and leave the children in one place, the parents often abandon this arrangement after only a short time. It is hard to live like this.

Divorce is a lose-lose game. You cannot take 100 percent, divide it in half, and have either side feel like he got a good deal. We all lose in divorce, but let's not make our children pay the price by being cut in half. They need to see both parents, but they need one place to live and one primary life director. Leaving the children in the middle of the conflict is not the answer.

Bill would outlaw blocking visitation - Alabama

montgomeryadvertiser.com

Excerpts:

Alabama parents who interfere with court visitation orders in child custody cases could face jail time.

The Alabama Legislature is considering making it a crime to willfully obstruct child visitation. Members of the House Judiciary Committee will meet this week to take up House Bill 683, a proposal that would make interference a Class "C" felony.

"I've gotten so many complaints through the years about the custodial parent being uncooperative with the noncustodial parent," said bill sponsor Rep. Steve McMillan, R-Gulf Shores. "When the noncustodial parent is supposed to see their children on Saturday morning, we want to make sure that they do see their children on Saturday morning.

Also on Wednesday, members of the House Judiciary Committee will consider another McMillan-sponsored bill, House Bill 650, a measure creating a shared parenting arrangement for divorcing and separating parents.

Currently, courts may order some form of joint custody without the consent of both parents. McMillan's proposal would ask for mutual formal consent.

Parents would be required to develop a comprehensive parenting plan to address such issues as the child's education, day care, health insurance and visitation, McMillan said. Either parent could submit the outline or they could present a joint plan.

"Ideally, it would be best if they could sit down and discuss it and work it out," he said.

Dueling child custody bills in Legislature-Alabama

Dueling child custody bills in Legislature

Excerpts below:

MONTGOMERY — Some divorced parents are upset about a Senate bill intended to clear up vague state law on when and where a custodial parent can move with a child.

In the House, authors of another bill want most divorced parents to have "shared parenting" and would prohibit most moves outside the child's current school district.

Sen. Myron Penn, D-Clayton, sponsors SB 239, which supporters say removes vague language in state law that sets conditions for divorced parents who want to move with minor children.

Supporters include family law advocates, attorneys and judges who say the current law's wording about moves, particularly out-of-state moves, is not clear. As a result, supporters say split families end up back before a judge for clarification.

Opponents include non-custodial parents who contend the bill will make it harder for them to be a part of their children's lives.

As grandparents, Allen Needham said he and his wife love and enjoy their grandchildren. When their son's former wife notified him a month ago about plans to move 1,000 miles away, Allen Needham said it saddened the family.

"I hate it for us, but I hate it more for my son," Allen Needham said. "He wants to be part of his children's lives and this move will make it much harder."

Rick Needham said the best system is one that allows both parents to be involved in their children's lives.

He said divorced parents should live close enough for children to see them on a regular basis.

Noah Funderburg, assistant dean of The University of Alabama School of Law, said the state already has good law to guide legal decisions when parents move, but one that needs minor modifications that SB 236 would make. Funderburg said parents and attorneys end up in court frequently because of the vague language that makes choices unclear.

The bill's intentions are to correct changes in the current law that "try to slant the law in favor of the non-custodial parent." Now, Funderburg said, a parent who moves even 60 miles away for a new job might lose custody under some interpretations of the law.

While parents like Needham believe the proposed changes would make it easier for one parent to move away and not notify the other, Funderburg said that is not the case.

"I am saddened that they have the mistaken idea that this would do away with the requirement to notify them of a move; it does not do that," the dean said.

In contrast, HB 650 would require most divorced parents to live in the same school district and participate in "shared parenting."

Rep. Steve McMillan, R-Bay Minette, sponsors the bill that could force parents to permanently lose custody of their children if they move outside the school district or violate other provisions of shared parenting.

He said the legislation is necessary based on appeals he has received from non-custodial parents caught in the legal process.

"While the current law is not perfect, virtually every study on custodial law that all things being equal it is better for both parents to be involved," he said.

Those provisions contain penalties that include custody loss if a parent files a domestic abuse/violence claim that proves to be false, or interferes with a custody order more than three times in three years.

For parents in the Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children, like the Needhams, a state law that sets strict limits on the actions of divorced parents and mandates shared custody is appealing. But there is another side to the coin.

Carol Gundlach, director of the Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said while nobody likes to think about it, some parents are dangerous and should not be a part of an open custody arrangement. She said HB 650 would allow that too often.

"It could put children in the custody of a parent who is very dangerous for either the child or the other parent," Gundlach said. She plans to ask for a public hearing on the bill.

Funderburg called HB 650 "a very bad bill." McMillan was not available for comment.

Debate rages over child custody bill - Alabama

montgomeryadvertiser.com

Excerpts below:

Debate rages over child custody bill

He and other noncustodial parents are asking state lawmakers to pass a measure that would give them equal custody of their children. Proponents say the new law would create a shared parenting arrangement for divorcing and separating parents and eliminate current joint custody statutes from Alabama divorce law. Critics believe the measure seeks a "cookie cutter" approach to settling custody disputes and unduly blocks judges' discretionary power.

Rusmisel, vice president of the Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children, said the proposed legislation is "far overdue" in Alabama.

State Rep. Steve McMillan, R-Bay Minette, is sponsoring the bill. Currently, courts may order some form of joint custody without the consent of both parents. McMillan's proposal would require formal consent.

Also, parents would have to submit a comprehensive parenting plan, addressing such issues as the child's education, day care, health insurance and visitation. Either parent could submit the outline or they could present a joint plan.

"The motivation is for them to work together to come up with a plan that is in the best interests of the children," Rusmisel said. "We're trying to get custody situations standardized as much as possible."

The legislation, now assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, is not without opposition.

Jerry Baxley, executive director of the Family Law Association of Alabama, said the measure sidesteps the authority of judges.

"On its face it looks good, but it should allow the court to make the decision, not the Legislature," Baxley said. "That's why we have judges. It's trying to make every divorce a cookie cutter. It has to still be the judges' responsibility to make those types of decisions."

The shared-parenting bill is not the only proposed measure that noncustodial parents are talking about. A separate legislative proposal, proponents of which stress that it is meant to protect Alabama's children in child-custody battles, is drawing vocal opposition from noncustodial parents.

Under existing law, there is the presumption that a change in a child's principal residence is not in the best interest of the child. Weiss noted that Penn's bill removes such language.

However Penn's measure keeps wording that places the initial burden of proof on the person seeking the residential change. If that burden is met, however, then the parent objecting to the change -- that is, the noncustodial parent -- has to convince the court that such a move is unjustified.

"I would think it would be fair," said the Family Law Association's Baxley. "The court shouldn't presume that the noncustodial parent is right. There should be a burden of proof for the noncustodial parent.

"Forcing a child by law to contact a noncustodial parent ... seems to me to be something very bad. There should be no law that requires a child to have to contact the noncustodial parent. Under this law, a child that has been abused could be forced to contact the noncustodial parent. It should be the parent's responsibility to contact the child."

Says Weiss: "The overwhelming theme is to eliminate anything that previously constrained a parent seeking to make a distant move away with the children."

Among other concerns of the bill's opponents is the removal of language in current Alabama law that requires judges to take into consideration whether the custodial parent has a past history of noncompliance with certain court orders.

"We feel this is an undisguised and bald attempt by the lawyers and judges lobby to eviscerate present law because judges do not like it and because the law removes some of the discretion of the court in order to protect parents and children from arbitrary or biased rulings," Weiss said.

ALCFC Press Release

Why Can't We Love Our Children

From D-Contamination to Grim Reapers and Father Christmas parent’s group challenges domestic court practices.

Birmingham, AL (PRWEB) December 19, 2004 -- With American divorce statistics rising annually and the majority of divorces involving children who 90% of the time, end up in mother’s custody with fathers being reduced to visitors and a paycheck in their children’s lives, many father’s rights groups have emerged demanding equality in America’s domestic relations courts. One group in particular is the Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children (ALCFC). The ALCFC has a national and international network of supporters who all claim to be victims of biased domestic relations courts.

On June 18th, 2004 the Friday before Father’s Day the ALCFC staged a D-Contamination raid on the Jefferson County Family Court in Birmingham, Alabama in a symbolic attempt to clean up Alabama Family Law. On October 29th, 2004 group leaders appeared as Grim Reapers at the Jefferson County Domestic Relations Court in Birmingham symbolizing that to fathers and children the court is a real life “House of Horrors” and that the court is responsible for the “Death of Fatherhood”. And once again on December 1st, 2004 at the same court showed up in full Santa costumes and helpers to attempt to “Save Father Christmas”.

Alan Rusmisel, Vice-President and co-founder of ALCFC remarks, “There can be no doubt about the negative effects on children caused by fatherlessness. These courts with their self-appointed social engineers, are the main perpetrator of fatherlessness in America and especially here in Alabama. Here we have a “good ole boy” justice system that is run by nothing more than child abusers. If separating a child from a fit and loving parent is not child abuse, I do not know what is. The ALCFC’s tactics of peaceful direct action is an attempt to bring these issues to the court of public opinion. The judges are not held accountable for their biased and unconstitutional actions against parents and children and the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission who is responsible for over seeing judges, is a perfect example of the fox guarding the henhouse. It is my opinion that this brotherhood structure is not an accident but, a well built money making machine for the members of Alabama Bar Association. The sad part is our innocent children are paying the price.”

The Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children is also addressing these issues in other venues. The ALCFC provided testimony to the Alabama Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines in March 2004. This prompting the filing of a Federal Lawsuit by member and supporter James Blackston (see Blackston v. Alabama http://www.fa-ir.org/alabama/cs/2004_suit/Complaint_2004_6.pdf) alleging that the state violated a federal court order and gerrymandered the hearings. The ALCFC is supporting the national class-action suit demanding the restoration of parental rights as mandated by the U.S. Constitution initiated by the Indiana Civil Rights Council and filed in Alabama by ALCFC member Dr. Richard Weiss. The group is also preparing equal parenting legislation to be presented to the Alabama Legislature in January 2005.

President and co-founder John Kral added, There should be no reason to have to file lawsuits in order to get permission to take our own children to get an ice crème cone or have lunch with them at their school. These are fundamental issues concerning parent’s and children’s rights and the ALCFC wants judges held accountable for denying these rights. We just want to be able to love and nurturer our children without undue state intervention.”

The Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children are registering members of families who have been victimized by domestic relation courts at their website www.alcfc.com. This in order to gain support and provide helpful information directly to victims

Moving in Alabama

This article is about relocation in Alabama. The statute has some pretty specific requirements for both custodial and non-custodial (Those are the worst terms! But then I can't think of any less horrible, open for suggestions...) parents. This statute is relatively restrictive to custodial parents seeking to move. It answers some of the problems, but may create others, and isn't nearly as comprehensive as I would like to see. We need laws that negate custodial v non-custodial and instead enforce the inherent rights and needs of a child to have ample access to both parents, which in my mind requires legislation making moving impossible except in the most extreme of circumstances, or at least a presumption that if a parent chooses to move the other parent will be awarded primary custody unless it is clearly and fundamentally not in the best interest of the child (ie. abuse of any sort... alcohol & drug, physical, emotional). The burden of proof should be on the moving party. Legislation of this type hopefully would reduce questions of relocation only to those cases where it was imperative. The Alabama statute information can be viewed at Divorceinfo