Stacey Mallette Fuller n/k/a Stacey Mallette Hein v. Abel Fuller

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04-13-2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2101011 Stacey M a l l e t t e F u l l e r n/k/a Stacey M a l l e t t e Hein v. Abel F u l l e r Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-05-995.02) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Stacey M a l l e t t e Hein father") while married ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d A b e l F u l l e r ("the i n 1999. They s e p a r a t e d t h e m o t h e r was p r e g n a n t w i t h twins, i n November 2004, a n d s h e moved t o 2101011 O n t a r i o , Canada. March The p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n were b o r n i n Canada i n 2005. In August mother 2005, i n Alabama; requested the father sought a d i v o r c e i n h i s divorce that the Madison C i r c u i t complaint, Court the t h a t he was n o t t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d r e n . that, i f h i s p a t e r n i t y was appeared although the specially mother i n the conceded suspected e s t a b l i s h e d , the Alabama that court") The f a t h e r c o u r t d e t e r m i n e c h i l d - c u s t o d y and c h i l d - s u p p o r t mother father ("the t r i a l d e t e r m i n e t h e p a t e r n i t y o f t h e c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e he requested from the the also trial issues. divorce trial The action; court could d i v o r c e h e r and t h e f a t h e r , she a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l court could not enter child a judgment a d d r e s s i n g child support because i t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n c o u r t a g r e e d and e n t e r e d and i n c o r p o r a t e d custody or t o do s o . The trial a judgment t h a t d i v o r c e d the p a r t i e s a settlement agreement addressing property i s s u e s ; the judgment d i d not address p a t e r n i t y , c h i l d custody, or c h i l d received support. M e a n w h i l e , t h e m o t h e r s o u g h t and a j u d g m e n t i n Canada i n w h i c h t h e f a t h e r was child Canadian judgment support. custody The awarded of the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n but awarded 2 ordered the t o pay mother the f a t h e r no 2101011 visitation. action The father because, jurisdiction The he had had moved argued, o v e r h i m ; he was mother registration the Canadian the Canadian court lacked unsuccessful. a t t e m p t e d on Canadian judgment to dismiss two i n Alabama. occasions Neither to r e g i s t e r the attempt r e s u l t e d i n a of the Canadian judgment. I n 2007, an A l a b a m a c o u r t d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e C a n a d i a n j u d g m e n t was v o i d , p r e s u m a b l y on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r was n o t p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h t h e complaint that initiated appeal from t h a t In she the mother styled as a modification of the that action. The mother d i d not judgment. J u l y 2009, requested that the filed petition 2005 trial i n the t r i a l for Alabama court court modification, divorce modify what seeking judgment. the Alabama She divorce j u d g m e n t t o a d d r e s s t h e c h i l d - c u s t o d y and c h i l d - s u p p o r t issues that sought i t had retroactive not child resolved; she also s u p p o r t , an o r d e r specifically d i r e c t i n g the f a t h e r to name t h e c h i l d r e n as b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f a l i f e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y on his life, an award e x p e n s e s , and an a t t o r n e y register the Canadian compensating fee. for her travel The m o t h e r d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o judgment 3 her a third time or seek a 2101011 m o d i f i c a t i o n of i t s c h i l d - c u s t o d y or c h i l d - s u p p o r t p r o v i s i o n s , having twice determination failed that i n that e n d e a v o r and h a v i n g the Canadian custody j u d g m e n t was v o i d and u n e n f o r c e a b l e . t h a t she was initial seeking an i n i t i a l child-support order father counterclaim answered the the mother's mother court petition expressly with other and judgment. on filed and a state w o u l d have child-support to state jurisdiction issues and that the that over no the the mother of [ t h e t r i a l court] t o t h e c h i l d c u s t o d y and s u p p o r t i s s u e s . " After a t r i a l judgment a In response, petition "consents to the j u r i s d i c t i o n respect as regarding the t r i a l over the proceeding. amended h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n child-custody children i n w h i c h he s o u g h t v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n . jurisdiction o f any and an judgment. In h i s answer, t h e f a t h e r r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s court's conclude custody determination regarding a child-support As a r e s u l t , we m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e 2005 A l a b a m a d i v o r c e The and received i n J a n u a r y 2011, t h e t r i a l March 1, 2011, modifying In t h a t judgment, the t r i a l i t had s u b j e c t - m a t t e r the court entered 2005 divorce court determined j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c h i l d - c u s t o d y c h i l d - s u p p o r t i s s u e s , awarded t h e p a r t i e s j o i n t l e g a l 4 a that and custody 2101011 of t h e c h i l d r e n , awarded t h e mother s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f the c h i l d r e n , awarded the f a t h e r s p e c i f i e d v i s i t a t i o n and o r d e r e d support. the father According periods, t o p a y $1, 254.47 p e r month i n c h i l d t o t h e judgment, the father's child- s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was made r e t r o a c t i v e t o A p r i l 23, 2009, t h e date of paternity-test paternity of the children. father's child-support to maintain The t r i a l The t r i a l health insurance parties confirming court the father's calculated the a r r e a r a g e t o be $26,343.87 a n d a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r t h a t amount. the results court r e q u i r e d t h e mother on t h e c h i l d r e n a n d o r d e r e d w o u l d e a c h be r e s p o n s i b l e noncovered medical expenses children. Because the t r i a l f o r one-half incurred court on also behalf made that o f any of the the father's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r noncovered m e d i c a l expenses r e t r o a c t i v e t o A p r i l 23, 2009, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r $226.30 f o r m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d on b e h a l f that date and t h e date denied a l l other The father of the children o f t h e judgment. between The t r i a l court r e l i e f requested by t h e p a r t i e s . sought postjudgment c o u r t ' s M a r c h 1, 2011, j u d g m e n t . of the trial The f a t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t he be a l l o w e d t o s e c u r e h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e 5 review c o v e r i n g t h e c h i l d r e n so 2101011 that he w o u l d n o t be r e q u i r e d insurance husband, child, premium paid by J o e l f o r the h e a l t h the mother, t o pay 79.27% o f t h e h e a l t h Hein, insurance and the the mother's coverage children. f a t h e r , he c o u l d s e c u r e h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e cost to him and that that f o r Hein, According 1 current Hein's to the w i t h o u t an a d d i t i o n a l insurance would provide full c o v e r a g e t o t h e c h i l d r e n i n New Y o r k , where t h e m o t h e r and t h e children were currently living. After a hearing on the father's motion, the t r i a l c o u r t amended i t s j u d g m e n t on J u n e 15, father's 2011, to adjust the child-support obligation downward t o $929.84 p e r month and t o a d j u s t t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t arrearage t o $19,526.58 as a result of the t r i a l d e c i s i o n not t o include the health-insurance the mother's c u r r e n t calculation. manifestly insurance The unjust court's premium p a i d by husband i n i t s c h i l d - s u p p o r t - o b l i g a t i o n court and specifically inequitable found that to include i t w o u l d be the health- premium i n t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t - o b l i g a t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n under the f a c t s of the case. T h e m o t h e r m a r r i e d H e i n i n December 2009, and t h e m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d r e n moved t o t h e s t a t e o f New Y o r k , where t h e y r e s i d e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e J a n u a r y 2011 t r i a l . 1 6 2101011 The court's mother June the mother court sought 15, 2011, filed postjudgment amended j u d g m e n t . The effective on mother's that postjudgment a the notice date. See of Rule postjudgment motion i s held trial On J u l y 22, 2011, The trial m o t i o n on A u g u s t appeal therefore 4(a)(5), A l a . R. ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t a n o t i c e of appeal f i l e d of of a n o t i c e of appeal to t h i s court. d e n i e d the mother's 2011. review became App. P. b e f o r e the r e s o l u t i o n i n abeyance and becomes e f f e c t i v e on t h e d a t e t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i s r e s o l v e d a r u l i n g o r d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n 24, by of law). Although n e i t h e r p a r t y r a i s e s the i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n , we must f i r s t appeal. 2009) c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r we have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s B a k e r v. B a k e r , 25 So. (stating that an 3d 470, appellate 472 may court j u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s ex mero m o t u ) . ( A l a . C i v . App. take notice of We b e g i n o u r a n a l y s i s by c o n s i d e r i n g A l a b a m a ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e U n i f o r m C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n and E n f o r c e m e n t A c t ("UCCJEA"), c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . for subject-matter The UCCJEA s e t s o u t t h e b a s i s jurisdiction 7 in a child-custody 2101011 proceeding. 2 A s t a t e has jurisdiction child-custody determination § 30-3B-201(a) i s s a t i s f i e d . o n l y when one 3 determination 30-3B-201(a) 2 A "child by enter an initial of the c r i t e r i a See § 30-3B-201(b) (a) i s t h e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l custody to ("Subsection b a s i s f o r making a a c o u r t of t h i s state."). proceeding" i s defined as " [ a ] proceeding i n a court i n which l e g a l custody, p h y s i c a l custody, or v i s i t a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to a c h i l d i s an i s s u e . The t e r m i n c l u d e s a p r o c e e d i n g f o r d i v o r c e , s e p a r a t i o n , n e g l e c t , abuse, dependency, g u a r d i a n s h i p , p a t e r n i t y , t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , and p r o t e c t i o n f r o m d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e , i n w h i c h t h e i s s u e may a p p e a r . The t e r m does not include a court proceeding involving juvenile d e l i n q u e n c y , c o n t r a c t u a l emancipation, a d o p t i o n , or e n f o r c e m e n t u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 [§§ 30-3B-301 t h r o u g h 30-3B-314]." § 30-3B-102(4). A " c h i l d custody 3 determination" i s defined as " [ a ] judgment, decree, or o t h e r o r d e r of a c o u r t p r o v i d i n g f o r the l e g a l custody, p h y s i c a l custody, o r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c h i l d . The term includes a permanent, temporary, initial, and m o d i f i c a t i o n o r d e r . The t e r m does n o t i n c l u d e an order r e l a t i n g t o c h i l d support or other monetary o b l i g a t i o n o f an individual." § 30-3B-102(3). 8 child Section provides: custody in 2101011 "(a) E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 3 0 3B-204, a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make an i n i t i a l c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n l y i f : "(1) T h i s s t a t e i s t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d on t h e d a t e o f t h e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g , o r was t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d w i t h i n s i x months b e f o r e t h e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g a n d t h e c h i l d i s absent from t h i s state but a parent or person acting as a p a r e n t continues to l i v e i n t h i s s t a t e ; "(2) A c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r s u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) , o r a c o u r t o f t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d h a s d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e ground that this state i s t h e more appropriate f o r u m u n d e r S e c t i o n 30-3B-207 o r 30-3B-208, a n d : "a. The child and t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s , o r t h e c h i l d and a t l e a s t one p a r e n t o r a p e r s o n acting as a p a r e n t , have a s i g n i f i c a n t connection with this s t a t e o t h e r t h a n mere p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e ; and "b. S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; "(3) A l l c o u r t s h a v i n g jurisdiction u n d e r s u b d i v i s i o n (1) o r (2) have d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t a court of this state i s t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e forum t o determine t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d u n d e r S e c t i o n 30-3B-207 o r 30-3B-208; o r 9 2101011 "(4) No c o u r t o f any o t h e r s t a t e w o u l d have jurisdiction under the criteria s p e c i f i e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n (1), (2), or ( 3 ) . " As t h e t r i a l the court s t a t e d at the t r i a l , A l a b a m a was not home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d r e n a t t h e commencement o f t h e child-custody proceeding i n s t i t u t e d by t h e mother. to filed the mother, modification, at the time she her she and t h e c h i l d r e n were l i v i n g , According petition for and h a d been l i v i n g s i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b i r t h i n 2005, i n O n t a r i o , Canada. The m o t h e r a r g u e d , as n o t e d a b o v e , t h a t , b a s e d on § 201(a)(4), the t r i a l c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n 30-3B- t o make a c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n b e c a u s e , she c o n t e n d e d , no o t h e r had jurisdiction However, to make a child-custody childstate determination. t h e m o t h e r was o p e r a t i n g on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e UCCJEA a p p l i e s o n l y t o s t a t e s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . Indeed, t h e w o r d " s t a t e " i s d e f i n e d i n § 30-3B-102 (15) as " [ a ] s t a t e of the U n i t e d S t a t e s , the D i s t r i c t of Columbia, Puerto Rico, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s V i r g i n I s l a n d s , o r any t e r r i t o r y o r i n s u l a r possession subject to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . " However, § 30-3B-105 g o v e r n s t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e UCCJEA and p r o v i d e s : "(a) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e s h a l l t r e a t a f o r e i g n c o u n t r y as i f i t were a s t a t e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s 10 2101011 f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a p p l y i n g t h i s a r t i c l e [§§ 30-3B101 t h r o u g h 3 0 - 3 B - 1 1 2 ] a n d A r t i c l e 2 [§§ 30-3B-201 t h r o u g h 3-3B-210]. "(b) E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( c ) , a c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n made i n a f o r e i g n c o u n t r y under f a c t u a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n s u b s t a n t i a l conformity with the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l standards of t h i s c h a p t e r [ i . e . , t h e UCCJEA] must be r e c o g n i z e d a n d e n f o r c e d u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 [§§ 30-3B-301 t h r o u g h 303B-114]. "(c) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e need n o t a p p l y t h i s chapter i f the c h i l d custody law of a f o r e i g n c o u n t r y v i o l a t e s f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s o f human rights." No one h a s s u g g e s t e d "violates pursuant fundamental that t h e c h i l d - c u s t o d y l a w o f Canada principles of human t o § 3 0 - 3 B - 1 0 5 ( a ) , we " s h a l l t r e a t rights," so, [Canada] as i f i t were a s t a t e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a p p l y i n g " t h e UCCJEA's j u r i s d i c t i o n a l provisions. Canadian custody proceeding i n 2005, Canada was u n d i s p u t e d l y the home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d r e n been born -- b o t h t h e r e and had been l i v i n g 11 A t t h e time of the of the c h i l d r e n had there with t h e i r mother 2101011 since their b i r t h . Canada r e m a i n e d A t the time the mother f i l e d t h i s 4 t h e home s t a t e o f t h e children. A l a b a m a i s n o t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s home s t a t e , and of application t h e UCCJEA r e s u l t s i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , a t t h e t i m e the commencement children's home jurisdiction to action, the matter UCCJEA, state. the 30-3B-201, mother's Thus, trial jurisdiction jurisdiction in may to the n o t be Official jurisdiction subject matter 4 the action, because Canada the "state" another was had to enter a c h i l d - c u s t o d y determination pursuant determination since of of c o u r t i n Alabama make present initial case. subject- child-custody Subject-matter c o n f e r r e d by a g r e e m e n t o r c o n s e n t . Comment ("It s h o u l d a l s o t o make a c h i l d jurisdiction, "Home s t a t e " an lacked be noted that custody determination i s an a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s i s d e f i n e d i n § 30-3B-102(7) as " [ t ] h e s t a t e i n which a c h i l d l i v e d w i t h a parent or a p e r s o n a c t i n g as a p a r e n t f o r a t l e a s t s i x consecutive months immediately before the commencement o f a c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g . I n t h e c a s e o f a c h i l d l e s s t h a n s i x months o f age, t h e t e r m means t h e s t a t e i n w h i c h t h e c h i l d l i v e d f r o m b i r t h w i t h any o f t h e p e r s o n s m e n t i o n e d . A p e r i o d o f temporary absence of the c h i l d o r any of the mentioned persons i s p a r t of the p e r i o d . " 12 § to 2101011 confer jurisdiction on a c o u r t t h a t w o u l d n o t o t h e r w i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s A c t i s i n e f f e c t i v e . " ) ; v. M.W.B., 868 So. 2d 451, 453-54 see a l s o C . J . L . ( A l a . C i v . App. ( h o l d i n g t h a t a mother's a c t i o n s i n l i t i g a t i n g of t h e judgment under r e v i e w consent in violation entered without of could not confer t h e UCCJEA). subject-matter s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , have 2003) the p r o p r i e t y jurisdiction Because a by judgment j u r i s d i c t i o n i s v o i d and c a n n o t see C . J . L . , 868 So. 2d a t 454, we dismiss t h e a p p e a l i n s o f a r as i t has been t a k e n f r o m t h e c h i l d - c u s t o d y determination We contained t u r n now jurisdiction judgment. support orders Family to the question to The render statute et seq. c h i l d - s u p p o r t order to recognition the court's judgment. whether the t r i a l child-support governing court aspect jurisdiction of i t s over child- ("UIFSA"), c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § Under UIFSA, an A l a b a m a c o u r t may i f no o t h e r under UIFSA c h i l d - s u p p o r t order has been issued and issue a entitled i f "the i n d i v i d u a l seeking the order resides i n another s t a t e . " 3A-401(a). a had i s Alabama's v e r s i o n o f t h e U n i f o r m I n t e r s t a t e Support Act 30-3A-101 w i t h i n the t r i a l We n o t e t h a t , l i k e t h e UCCJEA, UIFSA p r o v i d e s foreign jurisdiction may be 13 considered t o be § 30that a state for 2101011 p u r p o s e s o f a n a l y s i s u n d e r UIFSA. § 3 0 - 3 A - 1 0 1 ( 2 0 ) . Under 30-3A-101(20), the term " s t a t e " i s d e f i n e d § as "a s t a t e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , t h e D i s t r i c t of Columbia, Puerto R i c o , the U n i t e d S t a t e s Virgin I s l a n d s , o r any t e r r i t o r y or i n s u l a r possession s u b j e c t to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . The t e r m i n c l u d e s : "(i) an Indian t r i b e ; and " ( i i ) a f o r e i g n j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t has e n a c t e d a law or e s t a b l i s h e d p r o c e d u r e s f o r i s s u a n c e and e n f o r c e m e n t o f s u p p o r t o r d e r s which are s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to the procedures under t h i s c h a p t e r , the U n i f o r m R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement of Support A c t , or the Revised Uniform R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement of Support A c t . " An A l a b a m a c o u r t has a l r e a d y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e C a n a d i a n c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e f a t h e r , a p p a r e n t l y b a s e d on h i s a s s e r t i o n s t h a t he was of contact with Canada. n o t p r o p e r l y s e r v e d and on h i s l a c k In addition, we note that the C a n a d i a n j u d g m e n t w o u l d n o t have b e e n r e c o g n i z e d u n d e r UIFSA, b a s e d on the fact t h a t the f a t h e r met the e x e r c i s e of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n which none o f t h e b a s e s s e t o u t i n § 30-3A-201, provides: "In a proceeding to e s t a b l i s h , enforce, or modify a support order or t o determine parentage, a court of this state may exercise personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over a n o n r e s i d e n t i n d i v i d u a l or the i n d i v i d u a l ' s guardian or c o n s e r v a t o r i f : 14 for 2101011 "(1) the i n d i v i d u a l i s personally s e r v e d w i t h summons a n d c o m p l a i n t w i t h i n this state; "(2) the i n d i v i d u a l submits t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s s t a t e by consent, by e n t e r i n g a g e n e r a l appearance, o r by f i l i n g a r e s p o n s i v e document h a v i n g t h e e f f e c t o f waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction; "(3) t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d e d child i n this state; with the "(4) t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d e d i n t h i s s t a t e and p r o v i d e d p r e n a t a l expenses o r support f o r the c h i l d ; "(5) t h e c h i l d r e s i d e s i n t h i s s t a t e as a r e s u l t o f t h e a c t s o r d i r e c t i v e s o f the i n d i v i d u a l ; "(6) t h e i n d i v i d u a l e n g a g e d i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e i n t h i s s t a t e a n d t h e c h i l d may have been conceived by t h a t a c t of intercourse; "(7) t h e i n d i v i d u a l a s s e r t e d p a r e n t a g e i n t h e p u t a t i v e f a t h e r r e g i s t r y as p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 26-10C-1, w h i c h i s m a i n t a i n e d i n this s t a t e b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human Resources; or "(8) there i s any other basis consistent with the c o n s t i t u t i o n s of t h i s state and t h e U n i t e d States f o r the exercise of personal jurisdiction." As n o t e d a b o v e , u n d e r § 30-3A-401, an A l a b a m a c o u r t h a s jurisdiction t o i s s u e a c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r i f no o t h e r 15 child- 2101011 support order is recognized under UIFSA and i f the party seeking the c h i l d - s u p p o r t order r e s i d e s i n another s t a t e . Canadian child-support order i s not recognized and t h e m o t h e r r e s i d e s i n a n o t h e r " s t a t e . " on § 30-3A-201, § 30-3A-401, and trial in c o u r t had the present jurisdiction case. arguments c o n c e r n i n g court's Accordingly, f a c t s of t h i s based case, to enter i t s child-support w i l l therefore consider the UIFSA, child-support aspects the of the order mother's the trial trial court judgment. On erred We the under The appeal, the mother f i r s t in failing to include argues t h a t the i n the c h i l d - s u p p o r t - o b l i g a t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n t h e amount o f t h e h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e premium p a i d by her c u r r e n t husband f o r group coverage through h i s employer. She also argues t h a t the trial court income t o h e r i n l i g h t o f h e r t e s t i m o n y work. Regarding the t r i a l support, failing the the using mother c o m p l a i n s t h a t of the incorrect c h i l d r e n and income father's child-support when i t i m p u t e d t h a t she was unable to c o u r t ' s award of r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d t o award r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d birth erred the support t h a t the figures arrearage. 16 in trial the court from the trial court calculation erred in date of erred by of the 2101011 The t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l and e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t when t h e m o t h e r t h e f a t h e r s e p a r a t e d i n November 2004, t h e m o t h e r went t o Ontario t o be w i t h h e r f a m i l y . assistant. At t h a t time, she was a d e n t a l She h a d e a r n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $30,000 i n 2004; i n 2003, she h a d e a r n e d $24,857. A f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n were the mother s t a y e d them f o r a t i m e and t h e n a part-time in April The a t home w i t h p o s i t i o n as a r e t a i l s a l e s c l e r k . mother testified that she t h a t she c o u l d n o t s t a n d like "her spine not position. required both more t i m e was Her position stand; worked i s crushing." testified standing than that and a retail one a scoliosis t o the mother, her a b l e t o work." hour a She s a i d clerk that had said that without dental although than s i t t i n g sales h o w e v e r , she e x p l a i n e d She a l s o j o b as sitting, spent standing as from f o r more t h a n 30 m i n u t e s b e f o r e s i t f o r more She suffers According d o c t o r has "deemed [ h e r ] as n o t b e i n g could took 2009. t h a t had p r o g r e s s i v e l y worsened. felt She l a s t born, she she changing assistant she s a i d on a t y p i c a l required that day. her to she h a d w o r k e d o n l y part t i m e and t h a t she h a d u s u a l l y w o r k e d o n l y a few h o u r s p e r day. 17 2101011 The health mother e x p l a i n e d insurance plan provided t h a t he for that f o r the p a i d $409.50 p e r relationship, and Her month as the the current husband c h i l d r e n through a by h i s e m p l o y e r . c o v e r a g e f o r him, her family-coverage c u r r e n t husband t e s t i f i e d a health-insurance mother, h i s c h i l d children. Both for the children contact with the mother the that the previous and not f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had father her contributed children. The and premium from a c u r r e n t h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had support provided had no contact with n o t had had the c h i l d r e n s i n c e the e n t r y of the C a n a d i a n judgment because t h a t j u d g m e n t had n o t p r o v i d e d him v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s and b e c a u s e he was w a r y o f g o i n g t o Canada l e s t he be c h a r g e d w i t h f a i l i n g t o support the contact children. with judgment. the He support f o r the 2009 b u t the had defense He d i d not c h i l d r e n before admitted that children. earned only contractor he The e x p l a i n why the had entry $40,000 i n 2010; for which he of never f a t h e r had had he had not the had Canadian provided child e a r n e d $69,000 i n he explained worked had that been r e l o c a t e d and t h a t he had b e e n f o r c e d t o t a k e a l e s s l u c r a t i v e position with another contractor. 18 The father's income 2101011 a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t he e a r n s $4,151.33 p e r month and he also receives $656 per month in b e n e f i t s f o r a t o t a l m o n t h l y income o f The failure mother to first takes within include issue its military current children and husband the with the Norman, 766 provides is So. health-insurance r e s t of h i s family. 2d 857, 859 a v a i l a b l e to Rule 32(b)(7)(d) premium health for c a l c u l a t i o n of c h i l d coverage for A l a . R. of c h i l d s u p p o r t . 2000). by the Jud. Thomas v. That r u l e c o v e r a g e s h a l l be o r d e r e d i f i t e i t h e r parent 32(B)(7)(a). court's premium p a i d R u l e 32, ( A l a . C i v . App. that health-insurance trial child-support-obligation for Admin., g o v e r n s the d e t e r m i n a t i o n disability $4,807.33. c a l c u l a t i o n t h e amount o f t h e h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e her that at and insurance a reasonable cost. Rule (e) f u r t h e r e x p l a i n how is to be applied in support: "(d) The a c t u a l c o s t o f a premium t o p r o v i d e h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n s h a l l be a d d e d t o t h e ' b a s i c c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n ' and s h a l l be d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t s i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i r a d j u s t e d g r o s s income i n t h e p e r c e n t a g e s i n d i c a t e d on t h e C h i l d - S u p p o r t G u i d e l i n e s f o r m (Form CS-42). "(e) The amount t o be a d d e d t o t h e 'basic c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n ' s h a l l be t h e a c t u a l amount o f t h e t o t a l i n s u r a n c e premium f o r f a m i l y / d e p e n d e n t 19 the the 2101011 coverage, r e g a r d l e s s of whether a l l c h i l d r e n covered a r e i n t h e same f a m i l y . " (Emphasis added.) Although the trial court $409.50 h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e originally premium t o t h e added basic o b l i g a t i o n as r e q u i r e d by R u l e 3 2 ( B ) ( 7 ) ( d ) and the child-support ( e ) , i t amended i t s j u d g m e n t on t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t o remove t h e health-insurance obligation calculation. specifically doing so, completely child-support- the trial s t a t e d t h a t i t found t h a t i n c l u d i n g the insurance premium i n t h e support obligation inequitable" premium f r o m t h e In entire c a l c u l a t i o n of would be the 79.27% o f t h e h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e health- father's "manifestly because i t would r e s u l t i n the court unjust father's paying his c h i l d r e n b u t a l s o t h e m o t h e r , h e r c u r r e n t h u s b a n d , and his c h i l d f r o m an e a r l i e r r e l a t i o n s h i p . Thus, i t a p p e a r s t h a t the trial it not and only two premium c o v e r i n g child- c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , b a s e d on t h e f a c t s o f t h i s should deviate determination father. See from the child-support guidelines case, in i t s of the proper c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n f o r Rule the 32(A)(ii). Under R u l e 3 2 ( A ) , a trial c o u r t may choose not to apply t h e c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s i f i t makes a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g on 20 2101011 t h e r e c o r d t h a t " a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s w o u l d be u n j u s t or inappropriate" determination court the i s supported by "[a] b y t h e c o u r t , b a s e d upon e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n and s t a t i n g the reasons t h e r e f o r , that a p p l i c a t i o n of g u i d e l i n e s w o u l d be m a n i f e s t l y R u l e 32 ( A ) ( i i ) . So. and i f t h e f i n d i n g unjust or i n e q u i t a b l e . " As we e x p l a i n e d i n DeYoung v. DeYoung, 853 2d 967, 970 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) : "When t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the g u i d e l i n e s would be m a n i f e s t l y unjust or i n e q u i t a b l e and then d e v i a t e s from those g u i d e l i n e s i n s e t t i n g a s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n , t h e c o u r t must make t h e f i n d i n g s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 3 2 ( A ) ( i i ) , A l a . R. J u d . Admin. M.S.H. v. C.A.H., [82 9 So. 2d 164 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ] ( c i t i n g Thomas[ v . Norman], 766 So. 2d [857,] 859[ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ] ) . R u l e 3 2 ( A ) , Ala. R. J u d . A d m i n . , a l l o w s t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o d e v i a t e f r o m t h e g u i d e l i n e s so l o n g as t h e d e v i a t i o n i s b a s e d on ' e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n c o u r t ' c o n t a i n e d i n a ' w r i t t e n f i n d i n g on t h e r e c o r d . ' I n o t h e r words, t h e s u b s e c t i o n r e q u i r e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s t a t e a reason j u s t i f y i n g i t s d e v i a t i o n from t h e guidelines." As we have e x p l a i n e d b e f o r e , i n order to justify a deviation f r o m t h e g u i d e l i n e s , t h e r e c o r d must c o n t a i n f a c t u a l for support t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s w o u l d be unjust obligor. 2003). or inequitable under the circumstances facing the P r e d a v. P r e d a , 877 So. 2d 617, 622 ( A l a . C i v . App. In Preda, we reversed 21 the t r i a l court's judgment 2101011 ordering child s u p p o r t i n an amount l e s s t h a n t h a t r e s u l t i n g from a p p l i c a t i o n of the g u i d e l i n e s because the f a t h e r i n t h a t c a s e had not demonstrated that he was unable to afford the c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t h a t r e s u l t e d from the a p p l i c a t i o n of the guidelines. P r e d a , 877 So. 2d a t 622. A l t h o u g h we u n d e r s t a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c e r n o v e r father's being required health-insurance not j u s t the to pay premium t h a t a large percentage covers three of the people other c h i l d r e n , i t i s apparent from the and language used i n R u l e 32(B) ( 7 ) ( e ) t h a t t h e g u i d e l i n e s r e c o g n i z e that o r d e p e n d e n t c o v e r a g e c o u l d w e l l i n c l u d e c h i l d r e n who the that subject the of the child-support application inequitable simply secures insurance children would of Rule because covering be to the ignore To is the issue yet " a c t u a l amount o f t h e t o t a l i n s u r a n c e that still not determine unjust than the fact family are health-insurance persons other s p e c i f i c a l l y acknowledges t h i s the obligation. 32(B)(7)(e) the or premium obligor's the rule requires that premium" be u s e d i n the c h i l d - s u p p o r t - o b l i g a t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n . Because the record does he not completely reflect that the father requested that r e l i e v e d from p r o v i d i n g h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e 22 be coverage 2101011 for h i s c h i l d r e n and support the required conclusion under ability to burden him, sufficient because the the normal cannot not t h e m o t h e r , be covering The would that to the the a work not child support the father's otherwise unjustly trial court deviation father's request responsible does had from On remand, h o w e v e r , t h e t h a t he, for securing health a the trial and insurance the c h i l d r e n . mother next argues t h a t the trial i m p u t e d income t o h e r d e s p i t e h e r t e s t i m o n y to of affect or support case. wish to consider amount expenses agree factual basis g u i d e l i n e s i n the present c o u r t may the guidelines meet h i s we that evidence at t r i a l because she suffers from court improperly t h a t she i s u n a b l e scoliosis. As we explained, "Rule 3 2 ( B ) ( 5 ) , pertinent part: A l a . R. Jud. Admin., p r o v i d e s , " ' I f the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t e i t h e r p a r e n t i s v o l u n t a r i l y unemployed or underemployed, i t s h a l l e s t i m a t e t h e income t h a t p a r e n t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e have and s h a l l i m p u t e t o t h a t parent that income; the court shall calculate child s u p p o r t b a s e d on that p a r e n t ' s imputed income. In d e t e r m i n i n g the amount o f income t o be i m p u t e d t o a p a r e n t who i s unemployed or underemployed, the court should determine the employment p o t e n t i a l and p r o b a b l e e a r n i n g l e v e l of 23 in have 2101011 t h a t p a r e n t , b a s e d on t h a t p a r e n t ' s r e c e n t work h i s t o r y , e d u c a t i o n , and o c c u p a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and on t h e p r e v a i l i n g j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s and e a r n i n g l e v e l s i n t h e community.' " I n c a s e s o f v o l u n t a r y u n d e r e m p l o y m e n t , t h e amount of income t o be i m p u t e d t o t h e p a r e n t i s a q u e s t i o n of fact t o be decided based on the evidence p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See G.B. v. J.H., [915 So. 2d 570 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ] ; see a l s o C l e m e n t s v. C l e m e n t s , 990 So. 2d 383, 394 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( q u o t i n g W i n f r e y v. W i n f r e y , 602 So. 2d 904, 905 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992)) ('The t r i a l court i s a f f o r d e d t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o i m p u t e income t o a p a r e n t f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t , and the d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t a parent is voluntarily u n e m p l o y e d o r u n d e r e m p l o y e d " i s t o be made f r o m t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d a c c o r d i n g t o the j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ' ) . We may r e v e r s e a j u d g m e n t imputing income t o a v o l u n t a r i l y underemployed p a r e n t t h a t i s b a s e d on o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e o n l y i f t h a t j u d g m e n t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y w r o n g . G.B. v. J.H., 915 So. 2d a t 575." Stone v. Stone, 2009)(footnote The mother. was trial 26 So. 3d 1228, 1230-31 (Ala. Civ. omitted). c o u r t imputed a m o n t h l y income o f $1,257 t o t h e A l t h o u g h t h e m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l was unable t o work, she t e s t i f i e d that, and month. as a retail sales clerk t h a t she i n t h e p a s t , she w o r k e d as a d e n t a l a s s i s t a n t e a r n i n g as much as year App. earning $30,000 at least $700 had per per The m o t h e r s a i d t h a t she c o u l d n o t s t a n d f o r more t h a n 24 2101011 30 m i n u t e s o r s i t i n 1 p o s i t i o n f o r more t h a n an h o u r discomfort. The m o t h e r a d m i t t e d without t h a t a d e n t a l a s s i s t a n t would s i t a n d s t a n d a l t e r n a t e l y t h r o u g h o u t t h e d a y , d e p e n d i n g on t h e t a s k he o r she was p e r f o r m i n g . as a r e t a i l testimony, credibility i t alone regarding 2005). at least a The t r i a l c o u r t o b s e r v e d t h e m o t h e r d u r i n g and a b i l i t y t o work. App. that her job s a l e s c l e r k had r e q u i r e d her t o stand few h o u r s p e r d a y . her She a l s o a d m i t t e d her was permitted testimony that to she judge her lacked the G.B. v. J.H., 915 So. 2d 570, 575 ( A l a . C i v . Thus, we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court's d e c i s i o n t o i m p u t e income t o t h e m o t h e r was n o t s u p p o r t e d b y the evidence. The m o t h e r ' s final arguments concern the t r i a l court's a w a r d o f r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 30¬ 3-110 e t s e q . The m o t h e r f i r s t c o m p l a i n s t h a t t h e t r i a l court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award r e t r o a c t i v e s u p p o r t back t o t h e date of the c h i l d r e n ' s birth instead f a t h e r ' s p a t e r n i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d . the trial court of t o the date that the She f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t d i d not use t h e c o r r e c t income figures to d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t t h e f a t h e r owed. 25 2101011 The most comprehensive discussion of the retroactive- c h i l d - s u p p o r t s t a t u t e s i s f o u n d i n P.Y.W. v. G.U.W., 858 2d 265, 267-68 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003): " I t i s a b a s i c p r i n c i p l e of Alabama law t h a t a p a r e n t has a d u t y t o s u p p o r t h i s o r h e r m i n o r c h i l d and t h a t t h i s d u t y o f s u p p o r t i s a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t o f a l l m i n o r c h i l d r e n . S t a t e ex r e l . S h e l l h o u s e v. B e n t l e y , 666 So. 2d 517, 518 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) ; Ex p a r t e U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h A l a b a m a , 541 So. 2d 535, 537 ( A l a . 1989) . The A l a b a m a Legislature, r e c o g n i z i n g t h i s d u t y , c r e a t e d a cause of a c t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t . See A l a . Code 1975, §§ 30-3-110 t h r o u g h -115. "Even b e f o r e §§ 30-3-110 t h r o u g h -115 became e f f e c t i v e i n M a r c h 1994, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e h a d made i t c l e a r t h a t r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t i s f a v o r e d i n order t o ensure t h a t minor children r e c e i v e the support t h a t i s t h e i r due. S e c t i o n 2 6 - 1 7 - 9 ( d ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e d , and still p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t a c h i l d ' s mother may file '[a] c o m p l a i n t f o r n o n s u p p o r t o f [ t h e ] child ... alleging sufficient facts that the d e f e n d a n t owes a d u t y o f s u p p o r t , p r o v i d e d , t h a t s u p p o r t payments have n o t b e e n o r d e r e d p r e v i o u s l y pursuant to a decree of d i v o r c e . ' Moreover, § 26-17-8, A l a . Code 1975, specifically provided b e f o r e t h e e n a c t m e n t o f §§ 30-3-110 t h r o u g h -115, and s t i l l p r o v i d e s , t h a t a c o u r t may o r d e r a f a t h e r t o pay r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r a p e r i o d o f two years p r i o r to the f i l i n g of a complaint, or the b i r t h of the c h i l d , whichever i s the s h o r t e r time period. " I n Brown v. Brown, 719 So. 2d 228 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , t h i s c o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r , a p a r t f r o m an a c t i o n b r o u g h t u n d e r §§ 30-3-110 t h r o u g h -115, A l a b a m a l a w p r o v i d e d f o r t h e a w a r d o f r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t . In a case i n which the 26 So. 2101011 c o m p l a i n t was filed 'shortly s e p a r a t e d , 719 So. 2d a t 229, t h a t q u e s t i o n as f o l l o w s : a f t e r ' the p a r t i e s t h i s c o u r t answered " ' G i v e n t h i s s t a t e ' s p o l i c y and l a w r e q u i r i n g a parent to support a minor child, ... a trial c o u r t may, in i t s d i s c r e t i o n , award c h i l d s u p p o r t r e t r o a c t i v e to the f i l i n g of the complaint f o r d i v o r c e where t h e t r i a l c o u r t has f a i l e d t o e n t e r a pendente l i t e c h i l d support order f o r the p e r i o d i n w h i c h t h e p a r e n t had a d u t y t o support the c h i l d but f a i l e d to p r o v i d e that support.' "Brown, 719 So. 2d a t 232. "As n o t e d , t h e c l a i m f o r r e t r o a c t i v e child s u p p o r t i n Brown was n o t one b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t t o §§ 30-3-110 t h r o u g h -115. M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e trial court's judgment in Brown was entered approximately two years after the parties' s e p a r a t i o n and t h a t t h e o n l y i s s u e i n t h a t c a s e was w h e t h e r r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t was due f o r t h e one-year p e r i o d immediately b e f o r e t r i a l , a p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d p a i d no c h i l d s u p p o r t . D u r i n g t h e f i r s t 12 months f o l l o w i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' separation, the father had voluntarily paid substantial child support. Id. No issue was p r e s e n t e d i n Brown as t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a r e t r o a c t i v e a w a r d o f c h i l d s u p p o r t f o r any p e r i o d b e f o r e the f i l i n g of the complaint. " I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t §§ 30-3-110 t h r o u g h -115 'show an intent by the L e g i s l a t u r e t o b o l s t e r the r i g h t s of minors to [ c h i l d ] s u p p o r t w h i c h had p r e v i o u s l y b e e n g u a r a n t e e d by e a r l i e r s t a t u t e s [ s u c h as §§ 26-17-8 and 26-17-9] and t h e common l a w . ' We a g r e e . S e c t i o n 30-3-110 provides: 27 2101011 "'There i s hereby created a civil a c t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h an o r d e r o f r e t r o a c t i v e s u p p o r t w h i c h may be b r o u g h t a g a i n s t a n o n - s u p p o r t i n g p a r e n t who h a s a d u t y t o s u p p o r t as t h e l e g a l p a r e n t o f a c h i l d o r c h i l d r e n b u t has f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t . The a c t i o n may be b r o u g h t b y t h e p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n w i t h p h y s i c a l o r l e g a l c u s t o d y who i s p r o v i d i n g t h e a c t u a l care and support f o r t h e c h i l d o r may be b r o u g h t b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f [ A l a . Code 1975,] S e c t i o n 38-10-1 e t s e q . An a c t i o n under this s e c t i o n c a n be b r o u g h t o n l y i f s u p p o r t h a s not p r e v i o u s l y been o r d e r e d p u r s u a n t t o a d i v o r c e o r o t h e r a c t i o n i n t h i s o r any other j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' " S e c t i o n 30-3-114, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "'The order of r e t r o a c t i v e support s h a l l be a sum c e r t a i n j u d g m e n t a n d may cover a l l periods in which the non-supporting parent f a i l e d t o provide support. For a l l time p e r i o d s i n which support i s requested, the court shall c o n s i d e r t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d o r c h i l d r e n and t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r e n t s t o r e s p o n d to these needs, and s h a l l determine t h e amount o f s u p p o r t due f o r e a c h p e r i o d b y a p p l i c a t i o n of the c h i l d support g u i d e l i n e s f o u n d i n R u l e 32 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f Judicial A d m i n i s t r a t i o n based upon t h e circumstances d u r i n g the time p e r i o d f o r which s u p p o r t i s sought. I f t h e judgment for r e t r o a c t i v e support i n c l u d e s support due f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e i n w h i c h a i d was p a i d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s and an a s s i g n m e n t o f s u p p o r t r i g h t s t h e r e b y e x i s t s u n d e r S e c t i o n 3 8 - 1 0 - 4 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] a n d S e c t i o n 38-10-5, [ A l a . Code 1975,] t h e d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o 28 2101011 r e c o v e r any s u p p o r t due the department u n d e r S e c t i o n 3 8 - 1 0 - 6 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . ' " However, we need not c o n s i d e r the mother's argument t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have a w a r d e d r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t f r o m the date record of the children's c o n t a i n s no birth evidence i n March 2005 b e c a u s e r e g a r d i n g the b e f o r e 2009 upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l father's c o u r t c o u l d have The m o t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t u s e d figures to calculate awarded t o her i s w e l l t a k e n . a trial the retroactive income calculated and e n t e r e d s u c h a r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d - s u p p o r t o r d e r . income child 5 incorrect support S e c t i o n 30-3-114 r e q u i r e s c o u r t a p p l y R u l e 32 when c o m p u t i n g support; that s e c t i o n reads, i n p e r t i n e n t the retroactive that child part: "The o r d e r o f r e t r o a c t i v e s u p p o r t s h a l l be a sum c e r t a i n j u d g m e n t and may c o v e r a l l p e r i o d s i n w h i c h the non-supporting parent f a i l e d to p r o v i d e support. For a l l time p e r i o d s i n which support i s requested, t h e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d o r c h i l d r e n and t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r e n t s t o r e s p o n d t o t h e s e n e e d s , and s h a l l d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f s u p p o r t due f o r e a c h p e r i o d by a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s f o u n d i n R u l e 32 o f t h e O u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s no e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s income f o r t h e y e a r s b e t w e e n t h e b i r t h o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n 2005 and 2009. The income i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d r e g a r d i n g t h e f a t h e r r e f l e c t s t h a t he e a r n e d $4,807 p e r month a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l and t h a t he h a d e a r n e d $69,000 i n 2009. 5 29 2101011 A l a b a m a R u l e s o f J u d i c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n b a s e d upon the circumstances d u r i n g the time p e r i o d f o r which support i s sought." The father's income i n 2009 was more t h a n t h e amount he e a r n e d a t t h e time o f t r i a l ; however, t h e t r i a l c o u r t u s e d t h e f a t h e r ' s income a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t due i n s t e a d o f u s i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s 2009 income i n e s t a b l i s h i n g r e t r o a c t i v e s u p p o r t f o r t h e p e r i o d between A p r i l 23, 2009, and December 2009. In doing so, the t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 32 and t h e r e f o r e erred. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , i n s o f a r as i t a w a r d e d retroactive remanded child for the support, trial i s reversed, court to and properly the cause i s compute the r e t r o a c t i v e c h i l d s u p p o r t due f o r t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n A p r i l 23, 2009, and December 2009. In conclusion, the trial the UCCJEA court to lacked jurisdiction under enter determination r e s p e c t i n g the c h i l d r e n . subject-matter a child-custody I n s o f a r as t h e m o t h e r a p p e a l s from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment, h e r a p p e a l , been t a k e n f r o m a v o i d j u d g m e n t , i s d i s m i s s e d . That p o r t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment e s t a b l i s h i n g the f a t h e r ' s support o b l i g a t i o n i s reversed 30 having because of the t r i a l childcourt's 2101011 failure of t o i n c l u d e w i t h i n i t s computations the e n t i r e the health-insurance children. We retroactive child improperly 114. also premium reverse support that covers the t r i a l because the p a r t i e s ' court's the t r i a l court instructions t o vacate r e c a l c u l a t e both The award of e r r e d by c a l c u l a t i n g t h e amount o f s u p p o r t due u n d e r § 30-3¬ The c a u s e i s t h e r e f o r e remanded t o t h e t r i a l support amount court i t s child-custody determination i t s prospective with and t o and i t s r e t r o a c t i v e child- awards. mother's request f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s s p e c i a l l y , w i t h writing. Bryan, J . ,concurs i n the r e s u l t only, w i t h 31 writing. 2101011 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g With regard the trial premiums specially. t o t h a t p a r t o f the main o p i n i o n court's failure to include i n the c a l c u l a t i o n obligation, the addressing health-insurance of the f a t h e r ' s child-support I concur only because the f a t h e r d i d not ask t h i s court to overrule past d e c i s i o n s on t h a t i s s u e s u c h as Brown v. Brown, 719 So. 2d 228 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) (holding that the t r i a l c o u r t had not e r r e d i n i n c l u d i n g the c o s t of h e a l t h insurance c o v e r i n g b o t h t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t and t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d i n determining obligation), (Ala. in only health-insurance in child-support obligation). (holding that the t r i a l t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e c o s t the noncustodial I believe Rule parent's the d e c i s i o n s 32, A l a . R. parent "child-support i n calculating obligation." 32 single coverage cases and t h a t a b s u r d t o i n c l u d e premiums f o r h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e custodial of child-support i n those J u d . Admin., 1276-77 c o u r t had e r r e d c o v e r a g e and f a m i l y h e a l t h - i n s u r a n c e determining misconstrued parent's and B e r t r a m v. D o s s , 709 So. 2d 1274, C i v . App. 1998) including the noncustodial have i tis that covers the noncustodial a parent's 2101011 BRYAN, J u d g e , concurring i n the r e s u l t only. R e g a r d i n g the main o p i n i o n , I concur i n the r e s u l t only. However, I a g r e e w i t h t h e s e n t i m e n t s e x p r e s s e d by Judge Moore in his special writing. 33

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.