Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 38-10-3 (2026)
Authorization of Operation of Child Support Programs by Department of Human Resources Generally; Designation of the Department as the Agency to Administer Income Withholding.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) The Department of Human Resources of the State of Alabama shall operate child support programs as may be required under the provisions of Title IV-D, including, but not limited to, locating absent parents, establishing paternity, establishing or modifying support orders, enforcing support obligations and related matters, as described or defined by the Social Security Act and amendments thereto.
(b) As a part of the operation of the support programs established under subsection (a) hereof the Department of Human Resources of the State of Alabama shall administer income withholding in accordance with procedures which it shall establish for keeping adequate records to document, track, and monitor support payments collected pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
The department may designate and/or contract with public or private entities to administer income withholding on a state or local basis under the supervision of the department provided such entities are publicly accountable and follow the procedures established by the department for keeping adequate records. The department may designate and/or contract with only one entity to administer income withholding in each county of the state.
(Acts 1979, No. 79-819, p. 1528, §2; Acts 1986, Ex. Sess., No. 86-709, p. 120, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Jones v. Buckner, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (N.D. Ala. 2013).
Jones v. Buckner, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (N.D. Ala. 2013). “Fields and Thompson argue that they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority based on Alabama Code § 38-10-3, which provides that the DHR “shall operate child support programs as may be required under the provisions of Title IV-D [of the Social Security…”
Ex Parte Jenkins, 723 So. 2d 649 (Ala. 1998). “" Section 38-10-3(a). "As a condition of eligibility for aid, each recipient of aid to families with dependent children shall be deemed, by accepting aid, to have made an assignment to the department of the right to any support owed up to the amount of aid paid by the department.”
Davis v. Blackstock, 159 So. 3d 708 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). ““ ‘Accordingly, an assignment of support rights in non-ADC eases is permissible under Title IV-D, whether or not arrearages exist, upon application to the state IV-D agency (DHR) by either parent, and the same right is implicitly if not explicitly incorporated into the state…”
Chambliss v. Buckner, 804 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (M.D. Ala. 2011). “” Ala.Code § 38-10-3. One method the ADHR employs to enforce child support orders is the referral of a case to a Title IV-D ADHR attorney for a contempt action in state district court.”
State Ex Rel. McCord v. Smith, 2100862 (ala.civ.app. 11-4-2011), 84 So. 3d 894 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “Section 38-10-5, Ala.Code 1975, provides[:] “ ‘as a condition of eligibility for aid, each recipient of aid to families with dependent children shall have assigned to the department by operation of law any rights to support from any other person which such recipient may have in…”
Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Edwards, 603 So. 2d 366 (Ala. 1992). “…write specially only to address the issue of whether the State of Alabama has standing to bring this action. It does. Ala.Code 1975, § 38-10-3.”
State ex rel. Bivins v. Bivins, 617 So. 2d 286 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). “” It also claims that, pursuant to § 38-10-3(a), the state may file actions on behalf of minor children to modify support orders and further claims that, because the state filed the petition during the child’s minority, the only time pursuant to Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.”
State Dep't of Human Resources v. M.A.J., 703 So. 2d 405 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “§ 38-10-3(b), Code of Alabama, 1975.” Blackston v.”
State ex rel. Harris v. Harris, 559 So. 2d 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). “The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in determining that the mother had no support rights to assign to the State of Alabama.”
State ex rel. C.T.G. v. M.A.B., 723 So. 2d 649 (Ala. 1998). “” Section 38-10-3(a). “As a condition of eligibility for aid, each recipient of aid to families with dependent children shall be deemed, by accepting aid, to have made an assignment to the department of the right to any support owed up to the amount of aid paid by the…”
Ala. Dep't of Human Res. v. Allen, 238 So. 3d 1263 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). “DHR alleged that it is the state agency designated to prosecute child-support claims, see Ala. Code 1975, § 38-10-3(a), and that the mother had assigned her right to receive child support from the father to DHR, *1265 thereby making DHR a party in interest.”
Fields v. State Dep't of Human Resources ex rel. Fields, 226 So. 3d 188 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “Section 38-10-3(a), Ala, Code 1975, enables DHR, among other things, to “operate child support programs as may be required under the provisions of Title IVD, including, but not limited to, .”
— Ala. Code § 38-10-3(a) — 9 cases
Jones v. Buckner, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (N.D. Ala. 2013). “Fields and Thompson argue that they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority based on Alabama Code § 38-10-3, which provides that the DHR “shall operate child support programs as may be required under the provisions of Title IV-D [of the Social Security…”
Ex Parte Jenkins, 723 So. 2d 649 (Ala. 1998). “" Section 38-10-3(a). "As a condition of eligibility for aid, each recipient of aid to families with dependent children shall be deemed, by accepting aid, to have made an assignment to the department of the right to any support owed up to the amount of aid paid by the department.”
Davis v. Blackstock, 159 So. 3d 708 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). ““ ‘Accordingly, an assignment of support rights in non-ADC eases is permissible under Title IV-D, whether or not arrearages exist, upon application to the state IV-D agency (DHR) by either parent, and the same right is implicitly if not explicitly incorporated into the state…”
State ex rel. Bivins v. Bivins, 617 So. 2d 286 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). “” It also claims that, pursuant to § 38-10-3(a), the state may file actions on behalf of minor children to modify support orders and further claims that, because the state filed the petition during the child’s minority, the only time pursuant to Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.”
State Ex Rel. McCord v. Smith, 2100862 (ala.civ.app. 11-4-2011), 84 So. 3d 894 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “Section 38-10-5, Ala.Code 1975, provides[:] “ ‘as a condition of eligibility for aid, each recipient of aid to families with dependent children shall have assigned to the department by operation of law any rights to support from any other person which such recipient may have in…”
— Ala. Code § 38-10-3(b) — 4 cases
Jones v. Buckner, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (N.D. Ala. 2013). “Fields and Thompson argue that they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority based on Alabama Code § 38-10-3, which provides that the DHR “shall operate child support programs as may be required under the provisions of Title IV-D [of the Social Security…”
Davis v. Blackstock, 159 So. 3d 708 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). ““ ‘Accordingly, an assignment of support rights in non-ADC eases is permissible under Title IV-D, whether or not arrearages exist, upon application to the state IV-D agency (DHR) by either parent, and the same right is implicitly if not explicitly incorporated into the state…”
State Dep't of Human Resources v. M.A.J., 703 So. 2d 405 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “§ 38-10-3(b), Code of Alabama, 1975.” Blackston v.”
State Ex Rel. McCord v. Smith, 2100862 (ala.civ.app. 11-4-2011), 84 So. 3d 894 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “Section 38-10-5, Ala.Code 1975, provides[:] “ ‘as a condition of eligibility for aid, each recipient of aid to families with dependent children shall have assigned to the department by operation of law any rights to support from any other person which such recipient may have in…”
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.