Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 26-17-14 (2026)
Orders - Determinative for All Purposes; Provision for Support; Statement of Jurisdiction in Case of Out-of-State Service; New Birth Certificate; Other Provisions; How Support to Be Paid; Amount of Support; Proof Required for Support Order.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Repealed by Act 2008-376, p. 666, §1, effective January 1, 2009.
(Acts 1984, No. 84-244, p. 375, §14.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1986–2014 · leading case: Ex Parte Presse, 554 So. 2d 406 (Ala. 1989).
Ex Parte Presse, 554 So. 2d 406 (Ala. 1989). “Upon a showing that the child is owed a duty of support by the defendant, such duty may be established pursuant to the requirements of section 26-17-14. "(e) In addition to the civil action for nonsupport provided by this section, applicable sections of the criminal code are…”
Ex Parte Jones, 592 So. 2d 608 (Ala. 1991). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-14. However, unlike its predecessors, the Bastardy Act and the Paternity Act, the Parentage Act's provision tying actions for support to the age of majority of the child now parallels the Non-support Act's age limitation on the right to receive child…”
J.w.j., Jr. v. P.K.R., 906 So. 2d 182 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “Similar to § 12-15-30(b)(l), § 26-17-14(d), Ala.Code 1975, provides that when a trial court enters a judgment of paternity, it may include in that judgment other provisions appropriately addressed in connection with the resolution of a paternity case, including provisions…”
Ex Parte Univ. of South Alabama, 541 So. 2d 535 (Ala. 1989). “Section 26-17-14 provides: *541 "(a) The order of the court determining the existence or nonexistence of the parent and child relationship is determinative for all purposes.”
SF v. State Ex Rel. TM, 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “also submitted a brief in support of his constitutional challenge, in which he argued that § 26-17-14, Ala.Code 1975, was unconstitutional because, he said, it required him to pay child support even though he had been a nonconsensual party to sex that resulted in T.”
L.R.M. v. D.M., 962 So. 2d 864 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-14(d) (the juvenile court's order in a paternity action "may contain any other provision .”
Harris v. Mitchell, 958 So. 2d 884 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “See § 26-17-14(a), Ala.Code 1975; and Washington v.”
W.B.G.M. v. P.S.T., 999 So. 2d 971 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-14(d) (providing that a paternity judgment may contain terms ‘concerning .”
Jones v. Williams, 592 So. 2d 605 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). “In § 26-17-14, the statute provides for support of a child and § 26-17-8 provides for past support due before the commencement of an enforcement of support action.”
S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “also submitted a brief in support of his constitutional challenge, in which he argued that § 26-17-14, Ala.Code 1975, was unconstitutional because, he said, it required him to pay child support even though he had been a nonconsensual party to sex that resulted in T.”
J.M.V. v. J.K.H., 149 So. 3d 1100 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “Code 1975, former § 26-17-14. That statute authorized Alabama courts to change the surname of a child born out of wedlock to reflect the surname of the declared or adjudicated father.”
State ex rel. B.G. v. J.F.P., 721 So. 2d 213 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). “Upon paternity being established, the court shall immediately determine support payments at the conclusion of the paternity hearing and make support payment determination a part of the order establishing paternity.”
— Ala. Code § 26-17-14(a) — 10 cases
Harris v. Mitchell, 958 So. 2d 884 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “See § 26-17-14(a), Ala.Code 1975; and Washington v.”
SF v. State Ex Rel. TM, 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “also submitted a brief in support of his constitutional challenge, in which he argued that § 26-17-14, Ala.Code 1975, was unconstitutional because, he said, it required him to pay child support even though he had been a nonconsensual party to sex that resulted in T.”
S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “also submitted a brief in support of his constitutional challenge, in which he argued that § 26-17-14, Ala.Code 1975, was unconstitutional because, he said, it required him to pay child support even though he had been a nonconsensual party to sex that resulted in T.”
State ex rel. B.G. v. J.F.P., 721 So. 2d 213 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). “Upon paternity being established, the court shall immediately determine support payments at the conclusion of the paternity hearing and make support payment determination a part of the order establishing paternity.”
J.L.P. v. L.A.M., 41 So. 3d 770 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
— Ala. Code § 26-17-14(d) — 9 cases
J.w.j., Jr. v. P.K.R., 906 So. 2d 182 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “Similar to § 12-15-30(b)(l), § 26-17-14(d), Ala.Code 1975, provides that when a trial court enters a judgment of paternity, it may include in that judgment other provisions appropriately addressed in connection with the resolution of a paternity case, including provisions…”
L.R.M. v. D.M., 962 So. 2d 864 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-14(d) (the juvenile court's order in a paternity action "may contain any other provision .”
W.B.G.M. v. P.S.T., 999 So. 2d 971 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-14(d) (providing that a paternity judgment may contain terms ‘concerning .”
A.K. v. N.B., 66 So. 3d 242 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
Jwj, Jr. v. Pkr, 906 So. 2d 182 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).
— Ala. Code § 26-17-14(e) — 3 cases
Harris v. Mitchell, 958 So. 2d 884 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “See § 26-17-14(a), Ala.Code 1975; and Washington v.”
B.R.L. v. State ex rel. K.H.S., 664 So. 2d 908 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
BRL v. State Ex Rel. KHS, 664 So. 2d 908 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
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.