Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 30-3-160 (2026)
Short Title.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
This article shall be known and may be cited as the “Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act” and promotes the general philosophy in this state that children need both parents, even after a divorce, established in Section 30-3-150.
(Act 2003-364, p. 1017, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Lackey v. Lackey, 18 So. 3d 393 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).
Lackey v. Lackey, 18 So. 3d 393 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “The husband's first argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to apply the Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act ("the Act"), *399 Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-160 et seq., and that the wife failed to meet her burden of proof, pursuant to § 30-3-169.”
Gallant v. Gallant, 184 So. 3d 387 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act Alabama Code 1975, § 30-3-160 et seq., known as the “Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act” (“the Act”), “promotes the general philosophy in this state that children need both parents, even after a divorce, established…”
Toler v. Toler, 947 So. 2d 416 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “" In June 2004, the father filed another petition to modify custody, specifically invoking the provisions of the Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-160 et seq. In particular, the father alleged that on May 25, 2004, the mother notified him…”
Meadows v. Meadows, 3 So. 3d 221 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “, which embodies our state's policy that "children have frequent and continuing contact with [their] parents," § 30-3-150, and the Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act ("the Act"), codified at Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-160 et seq., which embodies our state's philosophy…”
Pratt v. Pratt, 56 So. 3d 638 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “In fashioning the appropriate restrictions, out of respect for the public policy encouraging interaction between noncustodial parents and their children, see Ala.”
New v. McCullar, 955 So. 2d 431 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “On May 13, 2004, the father filed a petition to modify, alleging that the mother intended to relocate to Birmingham, that the relocation would not be in the child's best interests, and that a temporary restraining order should be issued pursuant to the Alabama Parent-Child…”
T.C. v. C.E., 63 So. 3d 627 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “On November 25, 2008, the father sent the mother a letter by certified mail notify- *629 ing her of his plan to relocate with the children to Vernon, New York, at the end of the 2008-2009 school year; that notice was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Alabama…”
Marsh v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 100 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “Code 1975, § 30-3-165, a part of the Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act (“the Act”), codified at Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-160 et seq. The father then filed in the trial court a petition to hold the mother in contempt for failing to properly provide notice of her…”
Knight v. Knight, 53 So. 3d 942 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “The Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act (“the Act”), § 30-3-160 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, governs actions in which a parent seeks to relocate to another jurisdiction with a child of the parties.”
Ex Parte C.E. (In Re: T.C. v. C.E.)., 91 So. 3d 687 (Ala. 2011). “The notice apparently was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-160 et seq. (“the Relationship Protection Act”).”
Clements v. Clements, 906 So. 2d 952 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act, § 30-3-160 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the Act"), that she intended to move with the child to New York.”
D.D.P. v. D.M.B., 173 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “ppealed to this court; she asserts (a) that the juvenile court’s initial oral determination of the child’s dependency violated her due-process rights; (b) that the juvenile court’s disposition of the child was erroneous; (c) that the juvenile court erred in failing to consider…”
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.