Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 30-5-6 (2026)
Hearing on Petition; Temporary Orders.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) The court shall hold a hearing after the filing of a petition under this chapter upon the request of the defendant or within 10 days of the perfection of service. A final hearing shall be set at which the standard of proof shall be a preponderance of the evidence. If the defendant has not been served, a final hearing may be continued to allow for service to be perfected.
(b) The court may enter such temporary ex parte protection orders as it deems necessary to protect the plaintiff or children from abuse, or the immediate and present danger of abuse to the plaintiff or children, upon good cause shown. The court shall grant or deny a petition for a temporary ex parte protection order filed under this chapter within three business days of the filing of the petition. Any granted temporary ex parte protection order shall be effective until the final hearing date.
(c) If a final hearing under subsection (a) is continued, the court may make or extend temporary ex parte protection orders under subsection (b) as it deems reasonably necessary.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-476, p. 826, §6; Acts 1995, No. 95-542, p. 1126, §1; Act 2010-538, p. 919, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Thomas K. Wu v. Mi Cah Wu, 37 So. 3d 792 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).
Thomas K. Wu v. Mi Cah Wu, 37 So. 3d 792 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Specifically, the husband argues that the trial court was divested of subject-matter jurisdiction because, the husband argues, it did not conduct a hearing within 14 days of the date on which the wife filed her petition, as required by § 30-5-6(a), Ala.Code 1975, a part of the…”
Tony C. Williams v. Dorothy O. Harris., 80 So. 3d 273 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “Pursuant to § 30-5-6(a), Ala.Code 1975, Harris was required to “prove the allegation of abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Cloud v. Cloud, 187 So. 3d 725 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “Former § 30-5-6, Ala.Code 1975, which was in effect at the time the November 19, 1996, order was entered, provided as follows: "(a) Within 14 days of the filing of a petition under this chapter a hearing shall be held at which the plaintiff shall prove the allegation of abuse by…”
Leftwich v. VANSANDT, 995 So. 2d 172 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “In a manner similar to Ala.Code 1975, § 30-5-6(a), which is a portion of Alabama's Protection from Abuse Act ("PFAA"), 23 Pa.”
Horton v. Devan, 829 So. 2d 756 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). “Section 30-5-6 requires the sister to prove her allegations that the brother committed abuse against the mother by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Christopher Matthew Henderson v. State of Alabama. (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CC-17-3064). (Ala. Crim. App. 2024). “See § 30-5-6; and Ex parte C.C., [Ms. CL-2023-0368, May 31, 2023] ___ So.”
G.M.B. v. J.J.B. (Ala. Civ. App. 2026). “" Ala. Code 1975, § 30-5-6(b) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Edward Gyn Hamm, 134 F. App'x 328 (11th Cir. 2005). “” Ala.Code § 30-5-6(b). Within fourteen days of the filing of a petition for a protection order, the court must hold a hearing where “the plaintiff shall prove the allegations of abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Shawn Barnett v. Brooklyn Barnett (Ala. Civ. App. 2026). “Code 1975, "§ 30-5-6(a)[,] was designed to protect the due-process rights of defendants in PFA actions").”
Shaffer v. Walters, 45 So. 3d 777 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “” Our review of the statement of the evidence, as approved by the trial court, reveals that the only testimony provided by the wife regarding purported acts of abuse committed against her was a general statement about “a bunch of screaming and door slamming” that occurred on May…”
— Ala. Code § 30-5-6(a) — 7 cases
Thomas K. Wu v. Mi Cah Wu, 37 So. 3d 792 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Specifically, the husband argues that the trial court was divested of subject-matter jurisdiction because, the husband argues, it did not conduct a hearing within 14 days of the date on which the wife filed her petition, as required by § 30-5-6(a), Ala.Code 1975, a part of the…”
Tony C. Williams v. Dorothy O. Harris., 80 So. 3d 273 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “Pursuant to § 30-5-6(a), Ala.Code 1975, Harris was required to “prove the allegation of abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Leftwich v. VANSANDT, 995 So. 2d 172 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “In a manner similar to Ala.Code 1975, § 30-5-6(a), which is a portion of Alabama's Protection from Abuse Act ("PFAA"), 23 Pa.”
Cloud v. Cloud, 187 So. 3d 725 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “Former § 30-5-6, Ala.Code 1975, which was in effect at the time the November 19, 1996, order was entered, provided as follows: "(a) Within 14 days of the filing of a petition under this chapter a hearing shall be held at which the plaintiff shall prove the allegation of abuse by…”
Christopher Matthew Henderson v. State of Alabama. (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CC-17-3064). (Ala. Crim. App. 2024). “See § 30-5-6; and Ex parte C.C., [Ms. CL-2023-0368, May 31, 2023] ___ So.”
— Ala. Code § 30-5-6(b) — 4 cases
Thomas K. Wu v. Mi Cah Wu, 37 So. 3d 792 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Specifically, the husband argues that the trial court was divested of subject-matter jurisdiction because, the husband argues, it did not conduct a hearing within 14 days of the date on which the wife filed her petition, as required by § 30-5-6(a), Ala.Code 1975, a part of the…”
Christopher Matthew Henderson v. State of Alabama. (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CC-17-3064). (Ala. Crim. App. 2024). “See § 30-5-6; and Ex parte C.C., [Ms. CL-2023-0368, May 31, 2023] ___ So.”
G.M.B. v. J.J.B. (Ala. Civ. App. 2026). “" Ala. Code 1975, § 30-5-6(b) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Edward Gyn Hamm, 134 F. App'x 328 (11th Cir. 2005). “” Ala.Code § 30-5-6(b). Within fourteen days of the filing of a petition for a protection order, the court must hold a hearing where “the plaintiff shall prove the allegations of abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Ala. Code § 30-5-6(c) — 1 case
Thomas K. Wu v. Mi Cah Wu, 37 So. 3d 792 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Specifically, the husband argues that the trial court was divested of subject-matter jurisdiction because, the husband argues, it did not conduct a hearing within 14 days of the date on which the wife filed her petition, as required by § 30-5-6(a), Ala.Code 1975, a part of the…”
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.