Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 26-10A-3 (2026)

Jurisdiction.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THIS SECTION REPEALED BY ACT 2023-92, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2024.

(Acts 1990, No. 90-554, p. 912, §3.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: E.W.H. v. A.M.P., 997 So. 2d 1008 (Ala. 2008).
E.W.H. v. A.M.P., 997 So. 2d 1008 (Ala. 2008). · cites it 17× “On September 16, 2005, the great-uncle and great-aunt filed a motion contesting the adoption and a motion to transfer the case to the juvenile court, pursuant to § 26-10A-3, for the limited purpose of terminating the parents’ rights.”
Ex parte T.C.M., 222 So. 3d 360 (Ala. 2016). · cites it 18× “However, the prospective adoptive parents contended that § 26-10A-3, Ala. Code 1975, provided a basis for the probate court’s July 22, 2014, order transferring the adoption proceeding to the juvenile court.”
S.N.W. v. M.D.F.H., 127 So. 3d 1225 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “Consistent with § 26-10A-3, the mother and the stepfather moved the juvenile court to accept a transfer of the adoption proceeding in order to terminate the parental rights of the father, 1 thereby invoking the subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”
O.S. v. E.S., 205 So. 3d 1233 (Ala. 2014). · cites it 4× “under §§ 26-10A-3 and -25(d), the Court of Civil Appeals stated: “A probate court’s authority to set aside an adoption on collateral attack is governed by Ala.”
W.B.B. v. H.M.S., 141 So. 3d 1062 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “2013) (holding that a juvenile court may adjudicate a petition to terminate parental rights under § 26-10A-3, Ala.Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Adoption Code, although the action does not arise out of the proceedings listed in § 12 — 15—114(a)).”
S.A. v. M.T.O., 143 So. 3d 799 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “” Ala.Code 1975, § 26-10A-3. We hold that the probate court acted outside its jurisdiction in granting the petition to adopt in the absence of the required express or implied consent of the mother; we thus dismiss the appeals as being from a void judgment, see M.”
Ex parte L.J., 176 So. 3d 186 (Ala. 2014). · cites it 3× “The Court of Civil Appeals held that because § 26-10A-3 does not mandate that the termination-of-parental-rights proceeding be predicated on a dependency proceeding or a finding of dependency, the juvenile court had jurisdiction to entertain the mother's petition to terminate…”
C.L.C. v. D.W.R., 897 So. 2d 234 (Ala. 2004). · cites it 3× “, on the ground that the judgment was void because the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to grant the adoption since the probate court had transferred the case to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of terminating parental rights under § 26-10A-3, Ala.Code 1975. The…”
M.D.C. v. K.D., 39 So. 3d 1117 (Ala. 2009). · cites it 2× “Code 1975, § 26-10A-10(1); (2) those cases in which no formal termination of parental rights is required because consent to the adoption is irrevocably implied, see Ala.Code 1975, § 26-10A-10(1); and (3) those cases in which a termination of parental rights must be obtained…”
R.L. v. J.E.R., 69 So. 3d 898 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “The jurisdiction of Alabama courts in adoption matters is set forth in § 26-10A-3, Ala.Code 1975, which provides: “The probate court shall have original jurisdiction over proceedings brought under the chapter.”
K.L.B. v. W.M.F., 757 So. 2d 476 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Thereafter, the probate court, pursuant to the authority of § 26-10A-3, Ala..Code 1975, transferred the action to the juvenile court “for the limited purpose of adjudication of the issue of the alleged abandonment of said, child by the father.”
M.M. v. B.L., 926 So. 2d 1038 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “See § 26-10A-3, Ala.Code 1975.”). Moreover, the maternal grandparents have conceded the juvenile court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the adoption petition.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.