Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 30-3-28 (2026)
Jurisdiction Declined by Reason of Conduct; Expenses.
✓ 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Repealed by Act 99-438, p. 866, 1999 Regular Session, effective January 1, 2000.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, §8.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1982–1997 · leading case: Berry v. Berry, 466 So. 2d 138 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
Berry v. Berry, 466 So. 2d 138 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985). “Her argument is based upon Ala. Code (1975), § 30-3-28 (b), which provides: "Unless required in the interest of the child, the court shall not exercise its jurisdiction to modify a custody decree of another state if the petitioner, without consent of the person entitled to…”
Flannery v. Stephenson, 416 So. 2d 1034 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982). “*Page 1039 The pertinent provision of Alabama's version of the UCCJA is found at Alabama Code Section 30-3-28 (Cum.Supp. 1981): (a) If the petitioner for an initial decree has wrongfully taken the child from another state or has engaged in similar reprehensible conduct the court…”
Ballard v. Ballard, 444 So. 2d 872 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984). “Additionally, under § 30-3-28, a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that the petitioner has wrongfully taken the child from another state or engaged in similar reprehensible conduct.”
P.A.T. v. D.B., 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Additionally, Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-28(a), provides that a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that the petitioner “has wrongfully taken the child from another state or has engaged in similar reprehensible conduct.”
D.B. v. P.B., 692 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “The Florida court could have concluded that, although Alabama and Florida had concurrent jurisdiction in this case, Alabama should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction based on the Florida equivalent of Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-28(a) ("If the petitioner for an initial decree…”
Db v. Pb, 692 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “NOTES [1] The Florida court could have concluded that, although Alabama and Florida had concurrent jurisdiction in this case, Alabama should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction based on the Florida equivalent of Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-28(a) ("If the petitioner for an…”
Pat v. Db, 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Additionally, Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-28(a), provides that a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that the petitioner "has wrongfully taken the child from another state or has engaged in similar reprehensible conduct.”
Skelton v. Sudge, 455 So. 2d 38 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984). “Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe that the only relevant or applicable provision of the UCCJA is section 30-3-28. Because there was no prior order concerning custody, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) is not applicable.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-28(a) — 4 cases
P.A.T. v. D.B., 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Additionally, Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-28(a), provides that a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that the petitioner “has wrongfully taken the child from another state or has engaged in similar reprehensible conduct.”
D.B. v. P.B., 692 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “The Florida court could have concluded that, although Alabama and Florida had concurrent jurisdiction in this case, Alabama should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction based on the Florida equivalent of Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-28(a) ("If the petitioner for an initial decree…”
Db v. Pb, 692 So. 2d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “NOTES [1] The Florida court could have concluded that, although Alabama and Florida had concurrent jurisdiction in this case, Alabama should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction based on the Florida equivalent of Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-28(a) ("If the petitioner for an…”
Pat v. Db, 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Additionally, Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-28(a), provides that a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that the petitioner "has wrongfully taken the child from another state or has engaged in similar reprehensible conduct.”
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.