Alabama

Case law framework; factor structure: 12 considerations (unnumbered). No numeric age. Devine considers a child's preference when the child has sufficient age and maturity. Section 30-3-152 separately adds joint-custody considerations.

Authority

Ex parte Devine, 398 So. 2d 686 (Ala. 1981); Ala. Code §§ 30-3-131, -152

Source framework

Case law

Factor structure

12 considerations (unnumbered)

Operative language

must

Catch-all language

yes

Presumptions in the original survey

Joint custody if both parents request; DV rebuttable

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

Complete incompatibility of temperament such that the parties can no longer live together, upon the court’s satisfaction from the testimony; or a court finding of irretrievable breakdown and that further reconciliation attempts are impractical or futile and not in the best interests of the parties or family (§30-2-1(a)(7), (9)). Section 30-2-2 also permits divorce after a final bed-and-board or separate-maintenance judgment has been in force more than two years.

Authority

Ala. Code §§ 30-2-1, 30-2-2, 30-2-8.1, 30-2-40.

Grounds without a misconduct showing

Complete incompatibility of temperament such that the parties can no longer live together, upon the court’s satisfaction from the testimony; or a court finding of irretrievable breakdown and that further reconciliation attempts are impractical or futile and not in the best interests of the parties or family (§30-2-1(a)(7), (9)). Section 30-2-2 also permits divorce after a final bed-and-board or separate-maintenance judgment has been in force more than two years.

Other grounds and proof conditions

The other §30-2-1 grounds include physical and incurable incapacity at marriage; adultery; voluntary abandonment from bed and board for the year immediately before filing; two years in a penitentiary on a sentence of seven years or longer; the specified crime against nature; addiction after marriage to habitual drunkenness or the specified drugs; and mental-hospital confinement after marriage for five successive years with hopeless, incurable insanity at filing and the superintendent’s certified sworn opinion after full study and examination. The statute also includes the wife’s pregnancy at marriage without the husband’s knowledge or agency; actual violence attended with danger to life or health or reasonable apprehension of such violence; and the wife’s two years apart without the husband’s support immediately before filing, with bona fide Alabama residence throughout that period. These include status conditions as well as misconduct.

Separation

None for no-fault. (3) abandonment one year. (12) wife-only two years apart without support

Timing

30 days from filing, § 30-2-8.1

Relief without dissolution

Yes, § 30-2-40

Compare divorce grounds nationally

The statute calls the starting point a presumption against the move. Terry applies a shifting burden. The presumption has domestic-violence, initial-custody, and distance exceptions.

Authority

Ala. Code 30-3-160 to 30-3-169.10

Court test

statutory relocation factors

Burden classification

burden shifts to the objecting parent after a threshold showing

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

mileage threshold

Effect of silence

yes

What the court weighs

There is a rebuttable presumption that a change of principal residence is not in the child's best interest, unless the objecting party has been found to have committed domestic violence or child abuse (30-3-169.4). The court weighs the seventeen factors in 30-3-169.3(a): relationships, impact on the child, travel time, communication, feasibility of visitation, child preference, uprooting compared with a custody change, the pattern of promoting or thwarting the other parent, quality of life, support system, family stability, each party's reasons, domestic violence, and others. The presumption does not apply to an initial custody determination. There, 30-3-169.7 directs the court to consider the 169.2 and 169.3 factors (Lackey v. Lackey, 18 So. 3d 393, 398-99 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), restated in Stanford v. Anaya (Ala. Civ. App. 2025)). Sections 169.1–169.7 do not apply where the new residence is within 60 miles of the nonrelocating parent entitled to custody or visitation, or nearer that parent than before, unless the child will live in another state (§ 30-3-162(b)); Williams (2026) addresses the within-60-mile branch.

Who carries the burden

The relocating parent first must prove the move is in the child's best interest. After that showing, the burden shifts to the objecting parent to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the move is not in the child's best interest. Ex parte Terry, 154 So. 3d 1002 (Ala. 2013), requires both parents to present their whole cases at one hearing. The statutory presumption against the move supplies the mover's initial burden. It does not apply where the objecting parent has been found to have committed domestic violence or child abuse. Initial custody, moves within the statutory distance exception, and a separate request to change custody require their own analyses.

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes. 45 days before the intended move, by certified mail to the last known address of every other person entitled to custody or visitation (30-3-165(a)). If the information could not reasonably be known in time, notice is due no later than the 10th day after it becomes known. The notice must state the new address, the dates, the school, the reasons and a proposed revised schedule. It must also warn that an objection is due within 30 days or the relocation will be permitted (30-3-165(b)). There is a continuing duty to update within 10 days (30-3-165(d)). The duty falls on the person with the right to establish the child's principal residence (30-3-163).

Which moves trigger the rule

A change in the child's principal residence for 45 days or more, where custody was set by a prior court order (30-3-161(1), (11)). The objection and hearing machinery (30-3-169.1 to 169.7) does not apply if the new residence is 60 miles or less from the non-relocating parent, or nearer to that parent, unless the move puts the child in a different state (30-3-162(b)). Williams v. Williams (Ala. Civ. App. 2026): the move was within the 60-mile line because an agreed route of about 58 miles existed, even though a quicker driving route was longer. Whether distance is measured in a straight line or by road is left open. Non-parents with visitation may seek a revised schedule but cannot object (30-3-169.1(b)).

Objections and the effect of silence

The non-relocating person must file a proceeding for a temporary or permanent order within 30 days of receiving notice. If none is filed, the person entitled to set the child's residence may move after giving notice (30-3-169). Silence for 30 days authorizes the move. The court may extend or waive the 30 days for good cause, excusable neglect, or defective notice (30-3-169.1(c)).

The modification threshold

Not needed to invoke the Act: a proposed move is challenged directly under 30-3-169.1. After a temporary order or final judgment permitting the move, the court may treat a proposed or actual change of principal residence as a factor supporting a change of custody, weighing the 169.3(a) factors (30-3-169.3(a)). Failure to give notice is itself a factor in custody modification and in ordering the child returned (30-3-168(a)). Outside the Act (for example, a move within 60 miles), a change of residence standing alone is only one factor in the ordinary material-change analysis (Williams, 2026, citing Means v. Means, 512 So. 2d 1386 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987)).

Other qualifications

A hard mileage carve-out is written into the objection machinery: sections 30-3-169.1 through 169.7 do not apply to a move of 60 miles or less from the nonrelocating parent, or to a move nearer that parent, unless the move is to a different state (30-3-162(b)), and Williams (2026) counted an agreed route of about 58 miles although a quicker route ran longer. Military: the Act does not apply to non-voluntary military transfers, except for a notice without the 30-day warning (30-3-162(a), 30-3-165(c)).

Important qualification

The statute calls the starting point a presumption against the move. Terry applies a shifting burden. The presumption has domestic-violence, initial-custody, and distance exceptions.

Burden summary

Shifting burden

Notice summary

45 days; exceptions apply

Trigger summary

Objection provisions: more than 60 miles or out of state; nearer-parent exception applies in state

Compare parental relocation nationally