Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 30-3-23 (2026)
Jurisdiction to Make Child Custody Determination; Effect of Physical Presence of Child.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Repealed by Act 99-438, p. 866, 1999 Regular Session, effective January 1, 2000.
(Acts 1980, No. 80-92, p. 121, §3.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases, 1981–2013 · leading case: Ex Parte Carstens, 728 So. 2d 128 (Ala. 1998).
Ex Parte Carstens, 728 So. 2d 128 (Ala. 1998). “Because that action did not involve a question of custody, the trial court would not have had jurisdiction under § 30-3-23 to hear it. However, because the Florida court had, by that time, expressly relinquished its jurisdiction over all issues involved between these parties, we…”
Ex Parte Punturo, 1000115 (Ala. 2-8-2002), 928 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 2002). “The UCCJA, § 30-3-23(a)(1) through (4), Ala. Code 1975, provided Alabama courts four bases for exercising jurisdiction.”
Ex Parte Lee, 445 So. 2d 287 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983). “Section 30-3-23 provides in pertinent part that Alabama courts have jurisdiction if: "(2) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because: "a.”
McBride v. McBride, 688 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “The Alabama court had no jurisdiction to decide the issues of child custody and visitation under § 30-3-23. The court did not have "home state" jurisdiction, because the minor child resided with the mother in the state of Virginia and had not resided in Alabama for six months…”
Case v. Case, 627 So. 2d 980 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). “This divorce and custody case questions, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Houston County Circuit Court pursuant to §§ 30-3-23 and 30-3-27, Ala. Code 1975, part of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA).”
Jackson v. Jackson, 520 So. 2d 530 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). “Ala. Code (1975), § 30-3-23 provides: "(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: "(1) This state: "a.”
In Re Colburn, 497 So. 2d 182 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986). “In order for jurisdiction of a court in a particular state to attach in a case governed by the UCCJA, certain prerequisites must be met as set out in § 30-3-23, Code 1975 (1983 Repl.Vol.). Oklahoma has adopted the UCCJA, Okla.”
Fordham v. Siderius, 144 So. 3d 319 (Ala. 2013). “” Comment to Model Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act § 3, provision that was codified as § 30-3-23, Ala.Code 1975 (now repealed)(emphasis added).”
Culp v. Culp, 917 S.W.2d 233 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Ala.Code § 30-3-23. . Although Father designated his motion as a "Motion to Set Aside Order of June 25, 1993,” at the hearing both parties argued the motion as a T.”
Vick v. Vick, 688 So. 2d 852 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “1 In Vick, supra , we held that Alabama has jurisdiction under § 30-3-23, Ala. Code 1975, which provides, in part: "(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification…”
P.A.T. v. D.B., 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “First, the court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to act pursuant to § 30-3-23(a). That section, in pertinent part, states: “(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial…”
J.N.H. v. N.T.H., 705 So. 2d 448 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “In addition, the UCCJA requires an Aabama court to first determine whether it has jurisdiction over the custody dispute under Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-23. Upon consideration of the factors enumerated in § 30-3-23, I find that there is a substantial question concerning the…”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(a) — 4 cases
Ex Parte Carstens, 728 So. 2d 128 (Ala. 1998). “Because that action did not involve a question of custody, the trial court would not have had jurisdiction under § 30-3-23 to hear it. However, because the Florida court had, by that time, expressly relinquished its jurisdiction over all issues involved between these parties, we…”
P.A.T. v. D.B., 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “First, the court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to act pursuant to § 30-3-23(a). That section, in pertinent part, states: “(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial…”
L.L. v. St. Clair Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 659 So. 2d 618 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
Pat v. Db, 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(a)(1) — 11 cases
Ex Parte Punturo, 1000115 (Ala. 2-8-2002), 928 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 2002). “The UCCJA, § 30-3-23(a)(1) through (4), Ala. Code 1975, provided Alabama courts four bases for exercising jurisdiction.”
Jackson v. Jackson, 520 So. 2d 530 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). “Ala. Code (1975), § 30-3-23 provides: "(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: "(1) This state: "a.”
Case v. Case, 627 So. 2d 980 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). “This divorce and custody case questions, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Houston County Circuit Court pursuant to §§ 30-3-23 and 30-3-27, Ala. Code 1975, part of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA).”
Ex Parte Carstens, 728 So. 2d 128 (Ala. 1998). “Because that action did not involve a question of custody, the trial court would not have had jurisdiction under § 30-3-23 to hear it. However, because the Florida court had, by that time, expressly relinquished its jurisdiction over all issues involved between these parties, we…”
McBride v. McBride, 688 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “The Alabama court had no jurisdiction to decide the issues of child custody and visitation under § 30-3-23. The court did not have "home state" jurisdiction, because the minor child resided with the mother in the state of Virginia and had not resided in Alabama for six months…”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(a)(2) — 8 cases
McBride v. McBride, 688 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “The Alabama court had no jurisdiction to decide the issues of child custody and visitation under § 30-3-23. The court did not have "home state" jurisdiction, because the minor child resided with the mother in the state of Virginia and had not resided in Alabama for six months…”
Krier v. Krier, 676 So. 2d 1335 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
Case v. Case, 627 So. 2d 980 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). “This divorce and custody case questions, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Houston County Circuit Court pursuant to §§ 30-3-23 and 30-3-27, Ala. Code 1975, part of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA).”
Ex Parte Lee, 445 So. 2d 287 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983). “Section 30-3-23 provides in pertinent part that Alabama courts have jurisdiction if: "(2) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because: "a.”
P.A.T. v. D.B., 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “First, the court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to act pursuant to § 30-3-23(a). That section, in pertinent part, states: “(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial…”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(a)(3) — 5 cases
Ex Parte Punturo, 1000115 (Ala. 2-8-2002), 928 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 2002). “The UCCJA, § 30-3-23(a)(1) through (4), Ala. Code 1975, provided Alabama courts four bases for exercising jurisdiction.”
Ex Parte Lee, 445 So. 2d 287 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983). “Section 30-3-23 provides in pertinent part that Alabama courts have jurisdiction if: "(2) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because: "a.”
McBride v. McBride, 688 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “The Alabama court had no jurisdiction to decide the issues of child custody and visitation under § 30-3-23. The court did not have "home state" jurisdiction, because the minor child resided with the mother in the state of Virginia and had not resided in Alabama for six months…”
P.A.T. v. D.B., 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “First, the court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to act pursuant to § 30-3-23(a). That section, in pertinent part, states: “(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial…”
Pat v. Db, 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(a)(3)(b) — 2 cases
Ex Parte Lee, 445 So. 2d 287 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983). “Section 30-3-23 provides in pertinent part that Alabama courts have jurisdiction if: "(2) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because: "a.”
Skelton v. Sudge, 455 So. 2d 38 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984).
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(a)(4) — 4 cases
McBride v. McBride, 688 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “The Alabama court had no jurisdiction to decide the issues of child custody and visitation under § 30-3-23. The court did not have "home state" jurisdiction, because the minor child resided with the mother in the state of Virginia and had not resided in Alabama for six months…”
D.B. v. P.B., 692 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
Dacheux v. Paschael, 743 So. 2d 484 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).
Db v. Pb, 692 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(a)(l) — 2 cases
Bandor v. Bandor, 636 So. 2d 1254 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
Merryman v. Merryman, 725 So. 2d 986 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998).
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(a)(l)(b) — 1 case
Culp v. Culp, 917 S.W.2d 233 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Ala.Code § 30-3-23. . Although Father designated his motion as a "Motion to Set Aside Order of June 25, 1993,” at the hearing both parties argued the motion as a T.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(b) — 1 case
Ex Parte Punturo, 1000115 (Ala. 2-8-2002), 928 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 2002). “The UCCJA, § 30-3-23(a)(1) through (4), Ala. Code 1975, provided Alabama courts four bases for exercising jurisdiction.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-23(c) — 1 case
Vick v. Vick, 675 So. 2d 1324 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
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.