(a) Except as provided in Section 30-3-167, if a person required to give notice as required by Section 30-3-163 or Section 30-3-164 shall fail to provide the notice or the information required by subsection (b) of Section 30-3-165, the court shall consider the failure to provide such notice or information as a factor in making its determination regarding the change of principal residence of a child; a factor in determining whether custody or visitation should be modified; a factor for ordering the return of the child to the former residence of the child if the change of principal residence of a child has taken place without notice; a factor meriting a deviation from the child support guidelines; a factor in awarding increased transportation and communication expenses with the child; and a factor in considering whether the person seeking to change the principal residence of a child may be ordered to pay reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the person objecting to the change.
(b) Additionally, the court may make a finding of contempt of court if a party willfully and intentionally violates the notice requirement of an order issued by any court pursuant to Section 30-3-166 and may impose the sanctions authorized by law or rule of court for disobedience of a court order.
(Act 2003-364, p. 1017, §9.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 2007–2018 · leading case:
Wills v. Philbrook, 976 So. 2d 1014 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
Wills v. Philbrook, 976 So. 2d 1014 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
“Code 1975; § 30-3-168(a), Ala.Code 1975; Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co.”
I.L.C. v. J.D.B., 203 So. 3d 88 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
“See § 30-3-168(a). Therefore, the mother has not demonstrated that the juvenile court erred in its application of § 30-3-162(b).”
Larue v. Patterson, 163 So. 3d 356 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“He said: “I would like to point out to the Court, I know the Court is aware of it, but Section 30-3-168, Code of Alabama [ — ][i]t has to do with the Parental Relocation Act and notices and consequences for failure to give notice.”
Hoag v. Stinson, 268 So. 3d 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" 1 Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-168(a). Thus, although the trial court could properly deem the mother's recent record of sobriety as meriting an award of certain periods of visitation when the mother had previously had none, as well as warranting the removal of supervisional and…”
Hoag v. Stinson, 268 So. 3d 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" 1 Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-168(a). Thus, although the trial court could properly deem the mother's recent record of sobriety as meriting an award of certain periods of visitation when the mother had previously had none, as well as warranting the removal of supervisional and…”
Ala. Code § 30-3-168(a): 4 cases
Wills v. Philbrook, 976 So. 2d 1014 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
“Code 1975; § 30-3-168(a), Ala.Code 1975; Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co.”
I.L.C. v. J.D.B., 203 So. 3d 88 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
“See § 30-3-168(a). Therefore, the mother has not demonstrated that the juvenile court erred in its application of § 30-3-162(b).”
Hoag v. Stinson, 268 So. 3d 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).
“" 1 Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-168(a). Thus, although the trial court could properly deem the mother's recent record of sobriety as meriting an award of certain periods of visitation when the mother had previously had none, as well as warranting the removal of supervisional and…”
Hoag v. Stinson, 268 So. 3d 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).
“" 1 Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-168(a). Thus, although the trial court could properly deem the mother's recent record of sobriety as meriting an award of certain periods of visitation when the mother had previously had none, as well as warranting the removal of supervisional and…”
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.