Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 30-3B-201 (2026)
Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 30-3B-204, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if:
(1) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state;
(2) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (1), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under Section 30-3B-207 or 30-3B-208, and:
a. The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and
b. Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships;
(3) All courts having jurisdiction under subdivision (1) or (2) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under Section 30-3B-207 or 30-3B-208; or
(4) No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in subdivision (1), (2), or (3).
(b) Subsection (a) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state.
(c) Physical presence of a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination.
(Act 99-438, p. 866, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Fordham v. Siderius, 144 So. 3d 319 (Ala. 2013).
Fordham v. Siderius, 144 So. 3d 319 (Ala. 2013). “The controlling issue is which state — Alabama or Washington — has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody and visitation determination under § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975. A. Home-State Jurisdiction Under the UCCJEA Alabama and Washington have both adopted the UCCJEA.”
Weesner v. Diefenbach, 64 So. 3d 1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Accordingly, in order to have jurisdiction to modify the custody provisions of the Florida divorce judgment, the trial court would have to properly conclude that it had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination pursuant to subsections (1) or (2) of § 30-3B-201 and…”
H.T. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 163 So. 3d 1054 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “2014)(quoting § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975, Official Comment).”
Stouffer v. Wilson, 214 So. 3d 1192 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “We further determined that § 30-3B-201 did not confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon the Mobile Circuit Court because the record established that the mother, the father, and the children were all residing in North Carolina when the mother filed her modification petition and…”
Baker v. Baker, 25 So. 3d 470 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Also, substantial evidence, namely the testimony of the father, was available in Georgia regarding the care, protection, training, and personal relationships of the children.”
J.H. v. C.Y., 161 So. 3d 233 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “, § 93-27-201 (differing from § 30-3B-201 only in its references to other statutory sections).”
Peterson v. Peterson, 965 So. 2d 1096 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “) Because the Mobile Circuit Court had made the initial custody determination regarding the children in the divorce judgment consistent with § 30-3B-201, Ala. Code 1975, [4] § 30-3B-202(a) would confer upon it continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the mother's petition unless…”
Hensley v. Kanizai, 143 So. 3d 186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “The exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction “is extremely limited, allowing the court to make only such temporary orders as are necessary ‘to protect the child until the state that has jurisdiction under [Ala.Code 1975, §§ 30-3B-201 through 30-3B-203] enters an order.”
Gray v. Gray, 139 So. 3d 802 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). ““[Jurisdiction to make a child custody determination [under the UC-CJEA] is subject matter jurisdiction,” Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-201, Official Comment.”
C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 868 So. 2d 451 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “Once a court of this state loses continuing exclusive jurisdiction, it may modify its own prior custody determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 30-3B-201. § 30-3B-202(b). The father does not, and cannot, argue that this state could…”
Pierce v. Pierce, 50 So. 3d 447 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “” § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added); see also § 14-13-201, Colo.”
M.B. v. B.B., 244 So. 3d 128 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). “Section 30-3B-201(a), Ala. Code 1975, a part of the UCCJEA sets forth the exclusive jurisdictional basis for an Alabama court to exercise jurisdiction over an initial child-custody determination and provides: "Except as otherwise provided in Section 30-3B-204, [Ala.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(1) — 1 case
M.P.G. v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 215 So. 3d 1096 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(3) — 2 cases
S.C. v. J.T.C., 47 So. 3d 1253 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
Sc v. Jtc, 47 So. 3d 1253 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(7) — 1 case
Hensley v. Kanizai, 143 So. 3d 186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “The exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction “is extremely limited, allowing the court to make only such temporary orders as are necessary ‘to protect the child until the state that has jurisdiction under [Ala.Code 1975, §§ 30-3B-201 through 30-3B-203] enters an order.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(a) — 37 cases
Stouffer v. Wilson, 214 So. 3d 1192 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “We further determined that § 30-3B-201 did not confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon the Mobile Circuit Court because the record established that the mother, the father, and the children were all residing in North Carolina when the mother filed her modification petition and…”
H.T. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 163 So. 3d 1054 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “2014)(quoting § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975, Official Comment).”
Hensley v. Kanizai, 143 So. 3d 186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “The exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction “is extremely limited, allowing the court to make only such temporary orders as are necessary ‘to protect the child until the state that has jurisdiction under [Ala.Code 1975, §§ 30-3B-201 through 30-3B-203] enters an order.”
Hein v. Fuller, 93 So. 3d 961 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
In Re Guardianship of ZJ, 804 So. 2d 1009 (Miss. 2002).
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(a)(1) — 47 cases
Fordham v. Siderius, 144 So. 3d 319 (Ala. 2013). “The controlling issue is which state — Alabama or Washington — has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody and visitation determination under § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975. A. Home-State Jurisdiction Under the UCCJEA Alabama and Washington have both adopted the UCCJEA.”
Weesner v. Diefenbach, 64 So. 3d 1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Accordingly, in order to have jurisdiction to modify the custody provisions of the Florida divorce judgment, the trial court would have to properly conclude that it had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination pursuant to subsections (1) or (2) of § 30-3B-201 and…”
M.B. v. B.B., 244 So. 3d 128 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). “Section 30-3B-201(a), Ala. Code 1975, a part of the UCCJEA sets forth the exclusive jurisdictional basis for an Alabama court to exercise jurisdiction over an initial child-custody determination and provides: "Except as otherwise provided in Section 30-3B-204, [Ala.”
H.T. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 163 So. 3d 1054 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “2014)(quoting § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975, Official Comment).”
Pierce v. Pierce, 50 So. 3d 447 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “” § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added); see also § 14-13-201, Colo.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(a)(2) — 34 cases
H.T. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 163 So. 3d 1054 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “2014)(quoting § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975, Official Comment).”
Weesner v. Diefenbach, 64 So. 3d 1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Accordingly, in order to have jurisdiction to modify the custody provisions of the Florida divorce judgment, the trial court would have to properly conclude that it had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination pursuant to subsections (1) or (2) of § 30-3B-201 and…”
J.H. v. C.Y., 161 So. 3d 233 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “, § 93-27-201 (differing from § 30-3B-201 only in its references to other statutory sections).”
Baker v. Baker, 25 So. 3d 470 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Also, substantial evidence, namely the testimony of the father, was available in Georgia regarding the care, protection, training, and personal relationships of the children.”
B.B. v. L.W., 163 So. 3d 1042 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(a)(3) — 18 cases
Stouffer v. Wilson, 214 So. 3d 1192 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “We further determined that § 30-3B-201 did not confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon the Mobile Circuit Court because the record established that the mother, the father, and the children were all residing in North Carolina when the mother filed her modification petition and…”
Gray v. Gray, 139 So. 3d 802 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). ““[Jurisdiction to make a child custody determination [under the UC-CJEA] is subject matter jurisdiction,” Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-201, Official Comment.”
Baker v. Baker, 25 So. 3d 470 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Also, substantial evidence, namely the testimony of the father, was available in Georgia regarding the care, protection, training, and personal relationships of the children.”
B.B. v. L.W., 163 So. 3d 1042 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
A.N. v. B.N., 203 So. 3d 1234 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(a)(4) — 16 cases
Stouffer v. Wilson, 214 So. 3d 1192 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “We further determined that § 30-3B-201 did not confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon the Mobile Circuit Court because the record established that the mother, the father, and the children were all residing in North Carolina when the mother filed her modification petition and…”
Gray v. Gray, 139 So. 3d 802 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). ““[Jurisdiction to make a child custody determination [under the UC-CJEA] is subject matter jurisdiction,” Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-201, Official Comment.”
Baker v. Baker, 25 So. 3d 470 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Also, substantial evidence, namely the testimony of the father, was available in Georgia regarding the care, protection, training, and personal relationships of the children.”
Hein v. Fuller, 93 So. 3d 961 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
In Re: T.B.E. v. A.I.F. (Ala. Civ. App. 2026).
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(a)(l) — 22 cases
Fordham v. Siderius, 144 So. 3d 319 (Ala. 2013). “The controlling issue is which state — Alabama or Washington — has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody and visitation determination under § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975. A. Home-State Jurisdiction Under the UCCJEA Alabama and Washington have both adopted the UCCJEA.”
J.H. v. C.Y., 161 So. 3d 233 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “, § 93-27-201 (differing from § 30-3B-201 only in its references to other statutory sections).”
Baker v. Baker, 25 So. 3d 470 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Also, substantial evidence, namely the testimony of the father, was available in Georgia regarding the care, protection, training, and personal relationships of the children.”
Stouffer v. Wilson, 214 So. 3d 1192 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “We further determined that § 30-3B-201 did not confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon the Mobile Circuit Court because the record established that the mother, the father, and the children were all residing in North Carolina when the mother filed her modification petition and…”
Pierce v. Pierce, 50 So. 3d 447 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “” § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added); see also § 14-13-201, Colo.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(b) — 10 cases
Fordham v. Siderius, 144 So. 3d 319 (Ala. 2013). “The controlling issue is which state — Alabama or Washington — has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody and visitation determination under § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975. A. Home-State Jurisdiction Under the UCCJEA Alabama and Washington have both adopted the UCCJEA.”
H.T. v. Cleburne Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 163 So. 3d 1054 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “2014)(quoting § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975, Official Comment).”
Hensley v. Kanizai, 143 So. 3d 186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “The exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction “is extremely limited, allowing the court to make only such temporary orders as are necessary ‘to protect the child until the state that has jurisdiction under [Ala.Code 1975, §§ 30-3B-201 through 30-3B-203] enters an order.”
Hein v. Fuller, 93 So. 3d 961 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
Pierce v. Pierce, 50 So. 3d 447 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “” § 30-3B-201, Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added); see also § 14-13-201, Colo.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-201(c) — 1 case
Weesner v. Diefenbach, 64 So. 3d 1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Accordingly, in order to have jurisdiction to modify the custody provisions of the Florida divorce judgment, the trial court would have to properly conclude that it had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination pursuant to subsections (1) or (2) of § 30-3B-201 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.