In divorce, children become "Wards" of the state. Parents no longer have a say in the upbringing of their children. The state controls every aspect of the child's life and for this unique service, the state places a financial burden upon the overwhelmed parents, that most are unable to pay.

As wards of the court, the court can take measures necessary to protect the interest of minors involved in litigation, including the appointment of guardians ad litem, and tax the costs of same as a part of the court costs. Leigh vs. Aiken, 311 So. 2d. 444, (Civ. App. 1975). Wright v. Price, 226 Ala. 591, 147 So. 886; Weems v. Weems, 255 Ala. 210, 50 So.2d 428; Davis v. Davis, 255 Ala. 592, 52 So.2d 387

Most of the case law concerning the jurisdiction of the circuit courts over minor children is in respect to the continuing jurisdiction that court gains upon the submission of a custody issue in a divorce case. "When equity's jurisdiction is invoked, minor children are wards of the court, and it is the court's duty to guard and protect the interest of its infant wards with scrupulous care. . . . In the case of divorce of the parents, equity courts have inherent power to protect the welfare of the minor children born of the broken marriage and to make appropriate allowances for them, . . . and, having once obtained jurisdiction over the children of divorced parents, the court retains jurisdiction during their infancy." Clark vs. Clark, 682 So. 2d 1051, (Civ. App. 1996); See Wise v. Watson, 236 So. 2d 681, 684, 286 Ala. 22, 25 (1970). See also Roberson v. McAliley, 387 So. 2d 840, 842 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980).

Additionally, in a case involving child custody, any matter affecting the child becomes the subject of equity jurisdiction. Ayers v. Kelley, 224 So. 2d 673, 674, 284 Ala. 321, 322 (1969). Under Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-1, the circuit court, when granting a divorce, "may make such orders in respect to the custody of the children as their safety and well-being may require. "THE POWER OVER DECISIONS INVOLVING THE CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GRANTED IN THIS SECTION HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS "WIDE DISCRETION." Golson v. Golson, 471 So. 2d 426, 431 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).