Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 30-3-151 (2026)
Definitions.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
For the purposes of this article the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) JOINT CUSTODY. Joint legal custody and joint physical custody.
(2) JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY. Both parents have equal rights and responsibilities for major decisions concerning the child, including, but not limited to, the education of the child, health care, and religious training. The court may designate one parent to have sole power to make certain decisions while both parents retain equal rights and responsibilities for other decisions.
(3) JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY. Physical custody is shared by the parents in a way that assures the child frequent and substantial contact with each parent. Joint physical custody does not necessarily mean physical custody of equal durations of time.
(4) SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY. One parent has sole rights and responsibilities to make major decisions concerning the child, including, but not limited to, the education of the child, health care, and religious training.
(5) SOLE PHYSICAL CUSTODY. One parent has sole physical custody and the other parent has rights of visitation except as otherwise provided by the court.
(Acts 1996, No. 96-520, p. 666, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Whitehead v. Whitehead, 214 So. 3d 367 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
Whitehead v. Whitehead, 214 So. 3d 367 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “serve only to confuse the issue of custody.’ Harris v.”
Morgan v. Morgan, 964 So. 2d 24 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “However, a review of the record shows that the trial court did not invoke either statute when deciding the schooling issue.”
Cochran v. Cochran, 5 So. 3d 1220 (Ala. 2008). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-151(2) (defining joint legal custody).”
Richardson v. Fotheringham, 950 So. 2d 339 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “Using the proper terms set out in the joint-custody statute, § 30-3-151, Ala.Code 1975, the divorce judgment can be construed only one way that is, it awards the father sole physical custody and the mother and the father joint legal custody.”
G.H. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 62 So. 3d 540 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Second, if the mother was the sole legal custodian, see Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-151(4) (providing that a sole legal custodian has "sole rights and responsibilities to make major decisions concerning the child, including, but not limited to, the education of the child, health care,…”
New v. McCullar, 955 So. 2d 431 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “" § 30-3-151(3). The evidence in the record also shows that both parties in fact had frequent and substantial contact with the child; both parties lived in the same part of Baldwin County, and the father frequently took the child to, or picked him up from, school and various…”
Reeves v. Fancher, 210 So. 3d 595 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “In enacting § 30-3-151, Ala.Code 1975, our legislature defined only five types of custody a trial court may consider in fashioning a custody award: "joint custody,” "joint legal custody,” "joint physical custody,” “sole legal custody," and "sole physical custody.”
Alexander v. Alexander, 65 So. 3d 958 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “See Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-151. He also contends that the trial court improperly failed to award joint custody as contemplated by § 30-3-152(a), Ala.”
Ratliff v. Ratliff, 5 So. 3d 570 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-151(2) (“The court may designate one parent to have sole power to make certain decisions while both parents retain equal rights and responsibilities for other decisions.”
Stouffer v. Wilson, 214 So. 3d 1192 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “2003) ("there is but one way to interpret a judgment that awards ‘joint custody’ with an award of ‘primary physical custody’ to one parent—such a judgment must be interpreted as awarding the parents joint legal custody and awarding one parent sole physical custody, the term used…”
E.F.B. v. L.S.T., 157 So. 3d 917 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “’ § 30-3-151(3). “The evidence in the record also shows that both parties in fact had frequent and substantial contact with the child; both parties lived in the same part of Baldwin County, and the father frequently took the child to, or picked him up from, school and various…”
E.H.G. v. E.R.G., 73 So. 3d 614 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-151. Once custody is decided, the trial court does not thereafter assume the role of a “superparent” by subjecting the custodial parent’s decisions to its review and correction based on the court’s notion of the best interests of the child.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-151(1) — 10 cases
Whitehead v. Whitehead, 214 So. 3d 367 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “serve only to confuse the issue of custody.’ Harris v.”
J.K.M. v. T.L.M., 212 So. 3d 931 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
Williams v. Williams, 243 So. 3d 826 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).
Hadley v. Hadley, 202 So. 3d 699 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
Darling v. Darling, 252 So. 3d 1088 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).
— Ala. Code § 30-3-151(2) — 16 cases
Cochran v. Cochran, 5 So. 3d 1220 (Ala. 2008). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-151(2) (defining joint legal custody).”
Morgan v. Morgan, 964 So. 2d 24 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “However, a review of the record shows that the trial court did not invoke either statute when deciding the schooling issue.”
Ratliff v. Ratliff, 5 So. 3d 570 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-151(2) (“The court may designate one parent to have sole power to make certain decisions while both parents retain equal rights and responsibilities for other decisions.”
K.U. v. J.C., 196 So. 3d 265 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).
Gallant v. Gallant, 184 So. 3d 387 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
— Ala. Code § 30-3-151(3) — 15 cases
New v. McCullar, 955 So. 2d 431 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “" § 30-3-151(3). The evidence in the record also shows that both parties in fact had frequent and substantial contact with the child; both parties lived in the same part of Baldwin County, and the father frequently took the child to, or picked him up from, school and various…”
E.F.B. v. L.S.T., 157 So. 3d 917 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “’ § 30-3-151(3). “The evidence in the record also shows that both parties in fact had frequent and substantial contact with the child; both parties lived in the same part of Baldwin County, and the father frequently took the child to, or picked him up from, school and various…”
Whitehead v. Whitehead, 214 So. 3d 367 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “serve only to confuse the issue of custody.’ Harris v.”
Richardson v. Fotheringham, 950 So. 2d 339 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “Using the proper terms set out in the joint-custody statute, § 30-3-151, Ala.Code 1975, the divorce judgment can be construed only one way that is, it awards the father sole physical custody and the mother and the father joint legal custody.”
Williams v. Williams, 243 So. 3d 826 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).
— Ala. Code § 30-3-151(4) — 4 cases
G.H. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 62 So. 3d 540 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Second, if the mother was the sole legal custodian, see Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-151(4) (providing that a sole legal custodian has "sole rights and responsibilities to make major decisions concerning the child, including, but not limited to, the education of the child, health care,…”
K.T.D. v. K.W.P., 119 So. 3d 418 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
Kendrum Demell Robinson v. Katina Lynette Robinson (Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court: DR-22-900471). (Ala. Civ. App. 2024).
Elise Tomeny v. Patrick Tomeny (Ala. Civ. App. 2025).
— Ala. Code § 30-3-151(5) — 18 cases
Whitehead v. Whitehead, 214 So. 3d 367 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “serve only to confuse the issue of custody.’ Harris v.”
Reeves v. Fancher, 210 So. 3d 595 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “In enacting § 30-3-151, Ala.Code 1975, our legislature defined only five types of custody a trial court may consider in fashioning a custody award: "joint custody,” "joint legal custody,” "joint physical custody,” “sole legal custody," and "sole physical custody.”
J.K.M. v. T.L.M., 212 So. 3d 931 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
Wells v. Tankersley, 244 So. 3d 975 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).
Myers v. Myers, 260 So. 3d 55 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).
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.