(a) Whenever anyone owing the obligation of support has failed to provide support, and application is made to the department for support services as may be provided pursuant to the requirements of Title IV-D or for aid, the department, and including the district attorney when providing services for the department, may take appropriate action under this article, or any other appropriate state and federal statutes, to assure that the responsible person or persons owing the obligation of support provide support, including, but not limited to, civil or criminal actions to determine parentage or to establish, modify, or enforce support obligations. All actions to determine parentage or to establish, modify, or enforce support obligations may be brought in either the juvenile court or district court or the circuit court or appropriate federal court, and all presently existing statutes are hereby amended to provide that the juvenile courts and district courts and the circuit courts shall have the concurrent jurisdiction of actions involving parentage, desertion, nonsupport, or support.
(b) The court making the determination of parentage, or establishing, modifying, or enforcing support, unless otherwise provided by law, shall retain jurisdiction to enforce or modify prior orders of the court.
Acts 1979, No. 79-819, p. 1528, §7; Acts 1986, Ex. Sess., No. 86-709, p. 120, §6; Act 2012-383, p. 1011, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1980–2016 · leading case:
Dismukes v. Dorsey, 686 So. 2d 298 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
Dismukes v. Dorsey, 686 So. 2d 298 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “"We find the rule in Alabama to be that if a divorce decree provides for child support, subsequent modifications are continuations or supplementary actions to the original divorce action, and any order of support issued by another court pursuant to § 38-10-7, Code 1975, does not…”
L.R.S. v. M.J., 229 So. 3d 772 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Code 1975, § 12-15-314(e), and in actions brought under the Child Support Act of 1979, see Ala. Code 1975, § 38-10-7, but, in awarding child support in this case, the juvenile court did not rely on any of its statutory bases for doing, so.”
Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources (In Re Davis), 237 B.R. 177 (M.D. Ala. 1999).
· cites it 2× “In particular, § 38-10-7 of the 1975 Alabama Code provides: “Whenever anyone owing the obligation of support has failed to provide support, and application is made to the department for support services as may be provided pursuant to the requirements of Title IV-D or for aid,…”
Davis v. Blackstock, 159 So. 3d 708 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Under § 38-10-7, there is no requirement that the recipient parent be receiving financial aid from DHR in order to avail herself or himself of that agency’s assistance in enforcing the child-support obligation of the other parent.”
D.C.S. v. L.B., 84 So. 3d 954 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “At oral argument, counsel for amicus curiae, the Alabama Department of Human Resources (“DHR”), specifically acknowledged that any statements as to the authority of a juvenile court to adjudicate a petition to enforce a prior child-support judgment would be dicta, particularly…”
Mark D. Davis v. Gilbert Porterfield Self, 547 F. App'x 927 (11th Cir. 2013).
“Ala.Code §§ 38-10-7(a), 38-10-7.1. Accordingly, the district court correctly found that the state officials acting in this capacity — Defendants Connolly, Smith, and Hooper — were entitled to absolute immunity.”
Davis v. Self, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (N.D. Ala. 2013).
· cites it 2× “J Ala.Code § 38-10-7(a) (1975) (1992 Replacement Vol.”
State v. Little, 389 So. 2d 944 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “§ 38-10-7. The act provides that payment of aid to or on behalf of a dependent child creates a debt due the Department by the parent or parents of the child, provided however, in cases in which a court has ordered child support incident to a divorce decree or any other order for…”
Eddy v. Lyle, 455 So. 2d 877 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984).
· cites it 3× “§ 38-10-7, Code 1975. This was a circuit court case.”
Dcs v. Lb, 84 So. 3d 954 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “At oral argument, counsel for amicus curiae, the Alabama Department of Human Resources ("DHR"), specifically acknowledged that any statements as to the authority of a juvenile court to adjudicate a petition to enforce a prior child-support judgment would be dicta, particularly…”
In Re Davis, 243 B.R. 127 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 1999).
· cites it 3× “Alabama Code § 38-10-7 (1975) provides: Whenever anyone owing the obligation of support has failed to provide support, and application is made to the department for support services as may be provided pursuant to the requirements of Title IV-D or for aid, the department, and…”
— Ala. Code § 38-10-7(a) — 4 cases
Mark D. Davis v. Gilbert Porterfield Self, 547 F. App'x 927 (11th Cir. 2013).
“Ala.Code §§ 38-10-7(a), 38-10-7.1. Accordingly, the district court correctly found that the state officials acting in this capacity — Defendants Connolly, Smith, and Hooper — were entitled to absolute immunity.”
Davis v. Blackstock, 159 So. 3d 708 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
“Under § 38-10-7, there is no requirement that the recipient parent be receiving financial aid from DHR in order to avail herself or himself of that agency’s assistance in enforcing the child-support obligation of the other parent.”
Davis v. Self, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (N.D. Ala. 2013).
“J Ala.Code § 38-10-7(a) (1975) (1992 Replacement Vol.”
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.