Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 30-3-153 (2026)
Implementation; Required Provisions; Plan Set by Court.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) In order to implement joint custody, the court shall require the parents to submit, as part of their agreement, provisions covering matters relevant to the care and custody of the child, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1) The care and education of the child.
(2) The medical and dental care of the child.
(3) Holidays and vacations.
(4) Child support.
(5) Other necessary factors that affect the physical or emotional health and well-being of the child.
(6) Designating the parent possessing primary authority and responsibility regarding involvement of the minor child in academic, religious, civic, cultural, athletic, and other activities, and in medical and dental care if the parents are unable to agree on these decisions. The exercise of this primary authority is not intended to negate the responsibility of the parties to notify and communicate with each other as provided in this article.
(b) If the parties are unable to reach an agreement as to the provisions in subsection (a), the court shall set the plan.
(Acts 1996, No. 96-520, p. 666, §4.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Morgan v. Morgan, 964 So. 2d 24 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
Morgan v. Morgan, 964 So. 2d 24 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Likewise, the trial court did not require the parents to submit a plan as to the education for the child when they submitted their joint-custody agreement, and the court did not "set the plan" before entering the original joint-custody award, as allowed by § 30-3-153. Instead,…”
Ford v. Ford, 3 So. 3d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “On appeal, the father argues first that the trial court’s joint-custody award fails to comply with the joint-custody statute because it fails to specify a joint-custody plan as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153. He further argues that the trial court erred in not awarding…”
Cochran v. Cochran, 5 So. 3d 1220 (Ala. 2008). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153(a)(6)(within the context of a joint-legal-custody arrangement, discussing the designation of one parent who will have "primary authority and responsibility" for certain decisions "if the parents are unable to agree").”
Cleveland v. Cleveland, 18 So. 3d 950 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “the mother ai'gues that the trial court erred in awarding the parties’ joint legal custody of the children, in awarding joint physical custody of the son, in providing that the physical custody of the daughter would automatically transform into joint physical custody when the…”
Ratliff v. Ratliff, 5 So. 3d 570 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Specifically, the wife argues that the trial court erred by ordering the parties to share joint responsibility for all major decisions concerning the children without designating which parent should have final decision-making authority in the event of their disagreement.”
Bonner v. Bonner, 170 So. 3d 697 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “Plan for Joint-Custody Arrangement The wife argues that the custodial schedule in the divorce judgment lacks the specificity required by § 30-3-153, Ala. Code 1975, which provides as follows: “(a) In order to implement joint custody, the court shall require the parents to…”
Carden v. Carden, 64 So. 3d 1116 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “The mother also argued that the trial court’s joint-custody award did not comply with § 30-3-153, Ala.Code 1975, because, she said, it did not contain an adequate parenting plan.”
J.L.W. v. C.J.P. (Appeal from Jefferson Juv. Court: CS-22-900165). (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). “In support of her argument, the mother cites § 30-3-153, Ala. Code 1975, which provides that, "to implement joint custody, the court shall require the parents to submit, as part of their agreement, provisions 20 CL-2023-0561 covering matters relevant to the care and custody of…”
David Lovering v. Dana Lovering (Ala. Civ. App. 2023). “The April 2022 order granted the wife final decision-making authority with regard to issues concerning the children, see Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-153; provided each 4 CL-2022-0717 party with access to information regarding the children; provided additional holiday visitation to…”
E.K.C. v. D.L.G. (Ala. Civ. App. 2025). “Pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-153, a trial court may enter an order "[d]esignating the parent possessing primary authority and responsibility regarding involvement of the minor child in academic, religious, civic, cultural, athletic, and other activities, and in medical and…”
Steward v. Steward, 20 So. 3d 155 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “At this time, this Court cannot address whether the trial court's joint-custody order complies with § 30-3-153(b), Ala.Code 1975, because the mother failed to raise the issue in the trial court.”
Scarborough v. Darling, 947 So. 2d 405 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153. After the entry of the September 2003 judgment, the father maintained physical custody of the minor child during the school year.”
Ala. Code § 30-3-153(a): 2 cases
Ford v. Ford, 3 So. 3d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “On appeal, the father argues first that the trial court’s joint-custody award fails to comply with the joint-custody statute because it fails to specify a joint-custody plan as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153. He further argues that the trial court erred in not awarding…”
Carden v. Carden, 64 So. 3d 1116 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “The mother also argued that the trial court’s joint-custody award did not comply with § 30-3-153, Ala.Code 1975, because, she said, it did not contain an adequate parenting plan.”
Ala. Code § 30-3-153(a)(1): 1 case
Morgan v. Morgan, 964 So. 2d 24 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Likewise, the trial court did not require the parents to submit a plan as to the education for the child when they submitted their joint-custody agreement, and the court did not "set the plan" before entering the original joint-custody award, as allowed by § 30-3-153. Instead,…”
Ala. Code § 30-3-153(a)(3): 1 case
Ford v. Ford, 3 So. 3d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “On appeal, the father argues first that the trial court’s joint-custody award fails to comply with the joint-custody statute because it fails to specify a joint-custody plan as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153. He further argues that the trial court erred in not awarding…”
Ala. Code § 30-3-153(a)(4): 1 case
Ford v. Ford, 3 So. 3d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “On appeal, the father argues first that the trial court’s joint-custody award fails to comply with the joint-custody statute because it fails to specify a joint-custody plan as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153. He further argues that the trial court erred in not awarding…”
Ala. Code § 30-3-153(a)(6): 2 cases
Cochran v. Cochran, 5 So. 3d 1220 (Ala. 2008). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153(a)(6)(within the context of a joint-legal-custody arrangement, discussing the designation of one parent who will have "primary authority and responsibility" for certain decisions "if the parents are unable to agree").”
Ford v. Ford, 3 So. 3d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “On appeal, the father argues first that the trial court’s joint-custody award fails to comply with the joint-custody statute because it fails to specify a joint-custody plan as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153. He further argues that the trial court erred in not awarding…”
Ala. Code § 30-3-153(a)(l): 1 case
Ford v. Ford, 3 So. 3d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “On appeal, the father argues first that the trial court’s joint-custody award fails to comply with the joint-custody statute because it fails to specify a joint-custody plan as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153. He further argues that the trial court erred in not awarding…”
Ala. Code § 30-3-153(b): 5 cases
Morgan v. Morgan, 964 So. 2d 24 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “Likewise, the trial court did not require the parents to submit a plan as to the education for the child when they submitted their joint-custody agreement, and the court did not "set the plan" before entering the original joint-custody award, as allowed by § 30-3-153. Instead,…”
Ford v. Ford, 3 So. 3d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “On appeal, the father argues first that the trial court’s joint-custody award fails to comply with the joint-custody statute because it fails to specify a joint-custody plan as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-153. He further argues that the trial court erred in not awarding…”
Steward v. Steward, 20 So. 3d 155 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “At this time, this Court cannot address whether the trial court's joint-custody order complies with § 30-3-153(b), Ala.Code 1975, because the mother failed to raise the issue in the trial court.”
J.L.W. v. C.J.P. (Appeal from Jefferson Juv. Court: CS-22-900165). (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). “In support of her argument, the mother cites § 30-3-153, Ala. Code 1975, which provides that, "to implement joint custody, the court shall require the parents to submit, as part of their agreement, provisions 20 CL-2023-0561 covering matters relevant to the care and custody of…”
Carden v. Carden, 64 So. 3d 1116 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “The mother also argued that the trial court’s joint-custody award did not comply with § 30-3-153, Ala.Code 1975, because, she said, it did not contain an adequate parenting plan.”
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.