Alabama's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act

Repealed effective January 1, 2000

Alabama's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act

§ 30-3-27. Finding of inconvenient forum; communications with other courts.

Statute text

(a) A court which has jurisdiction under this article to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.

(b) A finding of inconvenient forum may be made upon the court's own motion or upon motion of a party or a guardian ad litem or other representative of the child.

(c) In determining if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into account the following factors, among others:

(1) If another state is or recently was the child's home state;

(2) If another state has a closer connection with the child and his family or with the child and one or more of the contestants;

(3) If substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state;

(4) If the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and

(5) If the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of this state would contravene any of the purposes stated in Section 30-3-21.

(d) Before determining whether to decline or retain jurisdiction the court may communicate with a court of another state and exchange information pertinent to the assumption of jurisdiction by either court with a view to assuring that jurisdiction will be exercised by the more appropriate court and that a forum will be available to the parties.

(e) If the court finds that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it may dismiss the proceedings, or it may stay the proceedings upon condition that a custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another named state or upon any other conditions which may be just and proper, including the condition that a moving party stipulate his consent and submission to the jurisdiction of the other forum.

(f) The court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this article if a custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding, while retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.

(g) If it appears to the court that it is clearly an inappropriate forum it may require the party who commenced the proceedings to pay, in addition to the costs of the proceedings in this state, necessary travel and other expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by other parties or their witnesses. Payment is to be made to the clerk of the court for remittance to the proper party.

(h) Upon dismissal or stay of proceedings under this section the court shall inform the court found to be the more appropriate forum of this fact or, if the court which would have jurisdiction in the other state is not certainly known, shall transmit the information to the court administrator or other appropriate official for forwarding to the appropriate court.

(i) Any communication received from another state informing this state of a finding of inconvenient forum because a court of this state is the more appropriate forum shall be filed in the custody registry of the appropriate court. Upon assuming jurisdiction the court of this state shall inform the original court of this fact.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

CASE NOTES

General comment

Compliance

Construction with other law

Discretion

Illustrative cases

Cited

General comment.

-- Alabama courts, pursuant to Alabama's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, must recognize and enforce valid custody modification judgments of another state but where foreign state did not have jurisdiction, the Alabama court was not required to give full faith and credit to its judgment. Case v. Case 627 So. 2d 980 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993).

Compliance.

-- If the court finds that it is not the most appropriate or convenient forum, the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction, and if the court assumes jurisdiction as the most convenient forum, the court must determine if the action to be taken is precluded by an order or judgment of another state. M.M.H. v. T.L.L. 634 So. 2d 567 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).

Construction with other law.

-- If a court determines that it does not have jurisdiction under § 30-3-23, the child custody process stops. If the court determines that it does have jurisdiction, it must determine whether it is the more appropriate and convenient forum under the guidelines of § 30-3-27(c). M.M.H. v. T.L.L. 634 So. 2d 567 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).

Discretion.

-- By use of the word "may," the statute makes the refusal to exercise jurisdiction discretionary with the trial court. Case v. Case 627 So. 2d 980 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993).

-- A court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, or if it finds that the petitioner has wrongfully taken the child from another state or has engaged in similar reprehensible conduct. P.A.T. v. D.B. 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).

Illustrative cases.

-- Since Alabama is not precluded from assuming jurisdiction by an order of another state in an initial custody action and Mississippi subsequently declined to accept jurisdiction, the Alabama court properly assessed the matter in accordance with the UCCJA and properly assumed jurisdiction. Alabama was the more appropriate and convenient forum. M.M.H. v. T.L.L. 634 So. 2d 567 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).

-- Petition by the children's paternal grandmother seeking temporary custody and seeking to enjoin the department of human resources from transferring custody to the state of Florida could have been properly denied under this section on the basis that Alabama was an inconvenient forum where the children had been transferred to Florida and the children's natural parents were in Florida. L.L. v. St. Clair County Dep't of Human Resources 659 So. 2d 618 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).

Cited in Ballard v. Ballard 444 So. 2d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984); Bennett v. Bennett 506 So. 2d 1021 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987); Via v. Johnston 521 So. 2d 1324 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987); Lyon v. Lyon 618 So. 2d 127 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992); Lyon v. Lyon 662 So. 2d 285 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).

§ 30-3-28. Decline of jurisdiction by courts.

Statute text

(a) If the petitioner for an initial decree has wrongfully taken the child from another state or has engaged in similar reprehensible conduct the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if this is just and proper under the circumstances.

(b) Unless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to custody, has improperly removed the child from the physical custody of the person entitled to custody or has improperly retained the child after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of physical custody. If the petitioner has violated any other provision of a custody decree of another state the court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if this is just and proper under the circumstances.

(c) In appropriate cases a court dismissing a petition under this section may charge the petitioner with necessary travel and other expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by other parties or their witnesses.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

Cross references. -This law is referred to in: §§ 30-3-34.

CASE NOTES

General comment

Discretion

Illustrative cases

Cited

General comment.

Discretion.

-- The provision in section 30-3-28(b) that the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction where the petitioner has violated a provision of a cusstody decree of another state, is discretionary with the trial court. Pitts v. Sutter 408 So. 2d 105 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).

-- Even if a parent has violated an out-of-state custody order the court may still exercise jurisdiction to modify the custody of the child as the decision as to whether to decline such jurisdiction is a discretionary one under this section. Berry v. Berry 466 So. 2d 138 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).

Illustrative cases.

-- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in assuming jurisdiction over temporary custody dispute where child's stepfather regularly and routinely beat him and the mother either condoned or ignored the condition. Skelton v. Sudge 455 So. 2d 38 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984).

Cited in Wyatt v. Falhsing 396 So. 2d 1069 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981); Flannery v. Stephenson 416 So. 2d 1034 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982); Ballard v. Ballard 444 So. 2d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984).

§ 30-3-29. Information required in pleadings.

Statute text

(a) Every party in a custody proceeding, in his first pleading or in an affidavit attached to that pleading, shall give information under oath as to the child's present address, the places where the child has lived within the last five years, and the names and present addresses of the persons with whom the child has lived during that period. In this pleading or affidavit every party shall further declare under oath whether:

(1) He has participated (as a party, witness, or in any other capacity) in any other litigation concerning the custody of the same child in this or any other state;

(2) He has information of any custody proceeding concerning the child pending in a court of this or any other state; and

(3) He knows of any person not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child.

(b) If the declaration as to any of the above items is in the affirmative the declarant shall give additional information under oath as required by the court. The court may examine the parties under oath as to details of the information furnished and as to other matters pertinent to the court's jurisdiction and the disposition of the case.

(c) Each party has a continuing duty to inform the court of any custody proceeding concerning the child in this or any other state of which he obtained information during this proceeding.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

Cross references. -This law is referred to in: §§ 30-3-26, 30-3-30.

CASE NOTES

Construction with other law

Cited

Construction with other law.

-- Where attorney represented husband in Georgia divorce proceedings while a child custody case between husband and wife was pending in Alabama, and attorney did not, in the Georgia complaint, disclose the pending custody proceedings in Alabama, as required by section 30-3-29(a)(2), attorney was not guilty of contempt under section 12-1-11, since husband had a right to pursue a divorce in that state and since incomplete or improper pleading did not ordinarily constitute contempt. In re Carter 412 So. 2d 811 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982).

§ 30-3-30. Joinder of custodial persons not parties to proceeding.

Statute text

If the court learns from information furnished by the parties pursuant to Section 30-3-29 or from other sources that a person not a party to the custody proceeding has physical custody of the child or claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the child, it shall order that person to be joined as a party and to be duly notified of the pendency of the proceeding and of his joinder as a party. If the person joined as a party is outside this state he shall be served with process or otherwise notified in accordance with Section 30-3-25.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

Hoffman, Quin: Procedure. - § 5.68, n. 222.1.

CASE NOTES

Illustrative cases

Cited

Illustrative cases.

-- Where the Nigerian father grounded his right to petition the Court for a writ of mandamus on the failure of the trial court to give notice to his relatives in Nigeria (who had physical custody of the children) of the custody proceeding pending in Alabama, the writ was properly denied. Merely alleging a procedural deficiency respecting third parties does not set forth a redressable injury sufficient to grant the petitioner standing to challenge a court order directing him to act. The court failed to see how the absence of notice to parties in Nigeria altered or impaired any rights of the petitioner. Ex parte Izundu 568 So. 2d 771 (Ala. 1990).

§ 30-3-31. Personal appearances by parties outside state.

Statute text

(a) The court may order any party to the proceeding who is in this state to appear personally before the court. If that party has physical custody of the child the court may order that he appear personally with the child.

(b) If a party to the proceeding whose presence is desired by the court is outside this state with or without the child the court may order that the notice given under Section 30-3-25 include a statement directing that party to appear personally with or without the child and declaring that failure to appear may result in a decision adverse to that party.

(c) If a party to the proceeding who is outside this state is directed to appear under subsection (b) or desires to appear personally before the court with or without the child, the court may require another party to pay to the clerk of the court travel and other necessary expenses of the party so appearing and of the child if this is just and proper under the circumstances.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

§ 30-3-32. Effect of decrees.

Statute text

A custody decree rendered by a court of this state which had jurisdiction under Section 30-3-23 binds all parties who have been served in this state or notified in accordance with Section 30-3-25 or who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and who have been given an opportunity to be heard. As to these parties the custody decree is conclusive as to all issues of law and fact decided and as to the custody determination made unless and until that determination is modified pursuant to law, including the provisions of this article.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

CASE NOTES

General comment

Cited

General comment.

-- In the context of interstate child custody and support actions, where Alabama is neither the initiating nor responding state, an Alabama court is not the proper forum for a challenge to those extraterritorial proceedings. Trillo v. Trillo 506 So. 2d 1019 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987).

§ 30-3-33. Recognition and enforcement of out-of-state decrees.

Statute text

The courts of this state shall recognize and enforce an initial or modification decree of a court of another state which had assumed jurisdiction under statutory provisions substantially in accordance with this article or which was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of this article, so long as this decree has not been modified in accordance with jurisdictional standards substantially similar to those of this article.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

CASE NOTES

General comment

Construction with other law

Modification

Illustrative cases

Cited

General comment.

-- Where sister state has rightfully assumed jurisdiction to determine custody of a child, the courts of this State will accord full faith and credit to the determination of the sister state. State v. Black, 239 Ala. 644, 196 So. 713 (1940).

-- Properly entered judgment of a sister state relating to child custody is entitled to recognition and enforcement in this state under this section. Sistrunk v. McKenzie 439 So. 2d 700 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983).

Construction with other law.

-- In stay proceedings in enforcement matters in UCCJA cases, the procedure to be followed is identical to the general law of the state governing stays on appeal in custody cases, with the party desiring a stay filing a written motion seeking such relief. Pitts v. Sutter 408 So. 2d 105 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).

Modification.

-- Proceedings to enforce a sister state's judgment do not open up the inquiry to petitions for modification. Pitts v. Sutter 408 So. 2d 105 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).

Illustrative cases.

-- Where child has acquired residence in another jurisdiction and where child is wrongfully removed therefrom and brought to a court of this State for the purpose of giving this State jurisdiction, the court of this State should properly decline jurisdiction, leaving jurisdiction to courts of child's adopted residence. State v. Black, 239 Ala. 644, 196 So. 713 (1940).

-- Where a New York court, having acquired jurisdiction over a child and awarding custody of the child to the mother, and where the father subsequently brought the child to Alabama for determination of the child's future custody by the Alabama court, the Alabama court would refuse to hear the question but would honor and enforce the decree of the New York court. State v. Black, 239 Ala. 644, 196 So. 713 (1940).

§ 30-3-34. Modification of out-of-state decrees.

Statute text

(a) If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state shall not modify that decree unless:

(1) It appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not now have jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with this article or has declined to assume jurisdiction to modify the decree; and

(2) The court of this state has jurisdiction.

(b) If a court of this state is authorized under subsection (a) and Section 30-3-28 to modify a custody decree of another state it shall give due consideration to the transcript of the record and other documents of all previous proceedings submitted to it in accordance with Section 30-3-42.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

CASE NOTES

General comment

Compliance

Construction with other law

Illustrative cases

Cited

General comment.

-- Without giving due consideration to the transcripts and records of the proceedings in another state, the court is not sufficiently informed to determine with certainty what action would be in the best interests of the children. Howe v. Musante 521 So. 2d 51 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988).

-- In order to modify the custody determination of the Alabama court, the Florida court must not only have jurisdiction to make such a determination, but the Alabama court must either no longer have jurisdiction or must have declined to exercise such jurisdiction. In this case, since the father has remained a resident of Alabama, and since the Alabama trial court has not declined to exercise jurisdiction, the Florida court is required to give full faith and credit to the Alabama decree and is powerless to modify the order of the trial court. Russo v. Myers 588 So. 2d 887 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990).

Compliance.

Construction with other law.

-- The Alabama trial court's order denying the father's motion to stay shows that the exercise of jurisdiction in Alabama was based upon § 30-3-23(a)(2). Thus, the Missouri court retained continuing jurisdiction over any child custody disputes between the parties and the exclusive right to issue a modification as long as the child or one of the parties remained a resident of Missouri and Missouri does not decline jurisdiction. Sebeniecher v. Corl 567 So. 2d 321 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990).

Illustrative cases.

-- New York had continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify the custody of the child in question and an Alabama trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the custody decree of New York where the father continued to reside in New York and the child was absent from New York due to the mother's deliberate and illegal removal of it from the jurisdiction of that court and her stated purpose of preventing the father from exercising his joint custody rights. Bloodgood v. Whigham 408 So. 2d 122 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).

-- There was no factual basis, tenuous or otherwise, for the assumption by the courts of this state of personal jurisdiction over nonresident father and therefore the trial court erroneously entered personal judgment for child support and attorney's fees against him. Sebeniecher v. Corl 567 So. 2d 321 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990).

§ 30-3-35. Filing and effect of out-of-state decrees.

Statute text

(a) A certified copy of a custody decree of another state may be filed in the office of the clerk of any court of this state having jurisdiction over domestic relations matters. The clerk shall treat the decree in the same manner as the custody decree of any such court of this state. A custody decree so filed has the same effect and shall be enforced in like manner as a custody decree rendered by a court of this state.

(b) A person violating a custody decree of another state which makes it necessary to enforce the decree in this state may be required to pay necessary travel and other expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the party entitled to the custody or his witnesses.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

Howell: Practice Forms. - § 5-5-4.01.

CASE NOTES

Attorney fees

"Custody decree"

Cited

Attorney fees.

-- With respect to attorney fees for enforcement of a judgment, the trial court's discretion applies not only as to what amount constitutes a reasonable fee, but also as to whether the party to be taxed with the other party's fee should be taxed with all or with just a portion of that fee. Pitts v. Sutter 408 So. 2d 105 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).

"Custody decree".

-- "Custody decree" does not include a contractual agreement entered into by a husband and wife, residents of another state, to govern the terms of their separation. Sloop v. Sloop 615 So. 2d 635 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992).

§ 30-3-36. Clerk to maintain registry of out-of-state decrees and other information.

Statute text

The clerk of each court having jurisdiction over domestic relations matters shall maintain a registry in which he shall enter the following:

(1) Certified copies of custody decrees of other states received for filing;

(2) Communications as to the pendency of custody proceedings in other states;

(3) Communications concerning a finding of inconvenient forum by a court of another state; and

(4) Other communications or documents concerning custody proceedings in another state which may affect the jurisdiction of a court of this state or the disposition to be made by it in a custody proceeding.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

Cross references. -This law is referred to in: §§ 30-3-26.

CASE NOTES

§ 30-3-37. Certification of decrees.

Statute text

The clerk of any court of this state having jurisdiction over domestic relations matters, at the request of the court of another state or at the request of any person who is affected by or has a legitimate interest in a custody decree, shall certify and forward a copy of the decree to that court or person.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

§ 30-3-38. Testimony by out-of-state children and other persons.

Statute text

In addition to other procedural devices available to a party, any party to the proceeding or a guardian ad litem or other representative of the child may adduce testimony of witnesses, including parties and the child, by deposition or otherwise, in another state. The court on its own motion may direct that the testimony of a person be taken in another state and may prescribe the manner in which and the terms upon which the testimony shall be taken.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

§ 30-3-39. Testimony in out-of-state courts.

Statute text

(a) A court of this state may request the appropriate court of another state to hold a hearing to adduce evidence, to order a party to produce or give evidence under other procedures of that state, or to have social studies made with respect to the custody of a child involved in proceedings pending in the court of this state and to forward to the court of this state certified copies of the transcript of the record of the hearing, the evidence otherwise adduced, or any social studies prepared in compliance with the request. The cost of the services may be assessed against the parties or, if necessary, ordered paid by the state.

(b) A court of this state may request the appropriate court of another state to order a party to custody proceedings pending in the court of this state to appear in the proceedings, and if that party has physical custody of the child, to appear with the child. The request may state that travel and other necessary expenses of the party and of the child whose appearance is desired will be assessed against another party or will otherwise be paid.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

Cross references. -This law is referred to in: §§ 30-3-26.

CASE NOTES

§ 30-3-40. Hearings, etc., by state courts for out-of state courts.

Statute text

(a) Upon request of the court of another state the courts of this state which are competent to hear custody matters may order a person in this state to appear at a hearing to adduce evidence or to produce or give evidence under other procedures available in this state. A certified copy of the transcript of the record of the hearing or the evidence otherwise adduced shall be forwarded by the clerk of the court to the requesting court.

(b) A person within this state may voluntarily give his testimony or statement in this state for use in a custody proceeding outside this state.

(c) Upon request of the court of another state, a competent court of this state may order a person in this state to appear alone or with the child in a custody proceeding in another state. The court may condition compliance with the request upon assurance by the other state that travel and other necessary expenses will be advanced or reimbursed.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

CASE NOTES

§ 30-3-41. Records; preservation; forwarding to other courts.

Statute text

In any custody proceeding in this state the court shall preserve the pleadings, orders and decrees, any record that has been made of its hearings, social studies, and other pertinent documents until the child reaches 18 years of age. Upon appropriate request of the court of another state the court shall forward to the other court certified copies of any or all of such documents.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

Cross references. -This law is referred to in: §§ 30-3-42.

§ 30-3-42. Requests for records from out-of state courts.

Statute text

If a custody decree has been rendered in another state concerning a child involved in a custody proceeding pending in a court of this state, the court of this state upon taking jurisdiction of the case shall request of the court of the other state a certified copy of the transcript of any court record and other documents mentioned in Section 30-3-41.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Annotations

Cross references. -This law is referred to in: §§ 30-3-26, 30-3-34.

CASE NOTES

§ 30-3-43. Applicability of article internationally.

Statute text

The general policies of this article extend to the international area. The provisions of this article relating to the recognition and enforcement of custody decrees of other states apply to custody decrees and decrees involving legal institutions similar in nature to custody institutions rendered by appropriate authorities of other nations if reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard were given to all affected persons.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

§ 30-3-44. Calendar priority and expeditious handling of cases.

Statute text

Upon the request of a party to a custody proceeding which raises a question of existence or exercise of jurisdiction under this article the case shall be given calendar priority and handled expeditiously.

History

History: Acts 1980, No. 80-92.

Back to Alabama's Joint Custody Act

[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]