Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 30-3-169.4 (2026)
Burden of Proof.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
In proceedings under this article unless there has been a determination that the party objecting to the change of the principal residence of the child has been found to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a change of principal residence of a child is not in the best interest of the child. The party seeking a change of principal residence of a child shall have the initial burden of proof on the issue. If that burden of proof is met, the burden of proof shifts to the non-relocating party.
(Act 2003-364, p. 1017, §14.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Lackey v. Lackey, 18 So. 3d 393 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).
Lackey v. Lackey, 18 So. 3d 393 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “, and that the wife failed to meet her burden of proof, pursuant to § 30-3-169.4, Ala.Code 1975, a part of the Act.”
Toler v. Toler, 947 So. 2d 416 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “("the Act"), as discussed hereinafter in this writing, this is not a case in which the father can prevail only if he is successful as to the issue as to which he has been heard.”
Clements v. Clements, 906 So. 2d 952 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “) However, we note that the trial court made no specific findings pertaining to the parties' respective burdens of proof under § 30-3-169.4 with regard to a change in the child's principal place of residence.”
Knight v. Knight, 53 So. 3d 942 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “In his brief on appeal, the father asserts arguments pertaining to whether each party met his or her purported burden under § 30-3-169.4, Ala. Code 1975, which provides: “In proceedings under this article unless there has been a determination that the party objecting to the…”
Marsh v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 100 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “Because we have concluded that the trial court complied with our mandate on remand by considering and applying the Act and by denying the mother’s request to relocate the child’s principal residence to Lucedale, Mississippi, we do not agree with the father that the trial court…”
Pepper v. Pepper, 65 So. 3d 421 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “The trial court’s final judgment did not make specific findings of fact regarding whether the mother had met her burden of rebutting the presumption found in § 30-3-169.4—that a change of principal residence of the children was not in the best interests of the children.”
Headrick v. Headrick, 916 So. 2d 610 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “Neither authority is directly applicable to this case, but both would support a conclusion that repeated changes in custody resulting in yearly changes to a child's primary residence and community would tend to be contrary to policy that undergirds much of our custodial law.”
Meadows v. Meadows, 3 So. 3d 221 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Section 30-3-169.4 requires that the trial court presume that the change in the principal residence [1] of a child is not in that child's best interest, and § 30-3-169.”
Terry v. Terry, 154 So. 3d 993 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “The mother argues that, in denying her request to relocate with the child, the trial court made findings that were plainly and palpably wrong, and she asserts that it improperly applied the presumption found in § 30-3-169.”
Nichols v. Nichols, 4 So. 3d 491 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “On August 22, 2006, the trial court entered an order in which it found that the mother had introduced sufficient evidence to rebut the initial eviden-tiary presumption imposed by § 30-3-169.4, Ala.Code 1975, that a change in the principal residence of the child was not in the…”
Marsh v. Smith, 37 So. 3d 174 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Specifically, he asserts that because the trial court found that the mother was a resident of Mobile County during the time she had the daughter in her custody pending the trial of this case, the court failed to apply the presumption of § 30-3-169.4 and failed to allocate the…”
McElheny v. Peplinski, 66 So. 3d 274 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-169.4 (addressing relocations of greater distance than 60 miles or across state lines).”
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.