Photo Credit: Steven A. Harris, House Bill 229: The Best Interest Of The Child Protection Act: What Every Alabama Family Law Attorney (And Parent) Should Know, The Harris Firm (Oct 24, 2025), https://www.theharrisfirmllc.com/2025/10/24/house-bill-229-the-best-interest-of-the-child-protection-act-what-every-alabama-family-law-attorney-and-parent-should-know/.
Authored by: Jaylee Schroeder
Recent proposed bills signal a potential shift in how Alabama analyzes the “best interests of the child” standard against growing equitable parental rights for custody determinations.[1] Alabama’s policy has a long-standing principle of prioritizing what is in the child’s best interests, including ensuring “frequent and continuing contact” with parents who act in their child’s best interests.[2] Courts must consider joint custody in every case, but retain broad discretion to decide custody splits in any manner that it deems, including awarding sole legal and physical custody, based on the evidence presented and what the court considers to be in the child’s best interest.[3] Although joint custody may be ordered without the consent of both parents, a presumption that joint custody is in the child’s best interest is only created if both parents request it at the initial custody proceeding.[4] Joint custody must then be granted unless the court is able to make “specific findings” as to why they deviated.[5] In all other cases, there is no presumption in favor of either parent at the outset of the case.[6] The current state policy explicitly states that joint custody does not mandate equal physical custody time, leaving the final decision of custody divisions to the court’s discretion.[7]
Criticism of the current standard has led to the introduction of multiple bills in the Alabama Legislature.[8] The most recent bill is House Bill 147, commonly named as the Best Interest of the Child Protection Act.[9] Most significantly, it seeks to create a rebuttable presumption that “joint custody is in the best interest of the child, except in cases of domestic or family abuse.”[10] The proposed bill also adds new language to the policy of the state by emphasizing the “importance of family and the fundamental rights of parents and children” and that social science research has found “consistent and maximized contact with parents” to be in a child’s best interest.[11] When making custody determinations, courts would be encouraged to consider this broadened policy of the state.[12]
Courts currently do not have an obligation to explain their reasons for deviating from awarding joint custody, except in cases where both parents have requested it.[13] This has fueled critiques that a lack of transparency from the courts regarding their reasoning for deviations from joint custody arrangements exposes the children to established negative risks that are associated with having limited contact with one parent.[14] When the court is making its determination of what custody arrangement is in the child’s best interest, the newly proposed presumption for joint custody at the outset must be overcome by a “preponderance of the evidence” to support an award of unequal custody time.[15] Under the bill, the court must enter an order explaining its reasoning, the facts and findings supporting the deviation, and a parenting plan that still “maximizes the time each parent has with the child” that ensures the welfare of the child.[16] The bill also expands the list of discretionary factors that should be considered by the court when awarding any custody arrangement other than joint custody.[17] Previous versions of the bill have been debated by the legal community about its possible consequences, both directly and indirectly.
Mobile County Circuit Judge Michael Sherman had raised concerns about the impacts of the bill and expressed how the bill prioritizes parents’ rights over judges being able to effectively protect the children involved in custody battles.[18] Sherman asserted that the presumption would unintentionally create more conflict between parents due to the presumption disregarding the child’s pre-existing bonds with either parent.[19] He also warned that false domestic violence claims are already used by parents to gain an advantage in custody fights.[20] By creating this new presumption, it would thus lead to more false domestic violence claims being filed because domestic violence could be used as an exception to overcome the joint custody presumption.[21] Sherman expressed concerns about inadvertently making parents’ faults publicly available if a judge is required to document their specific findings when awarding non-joint custody.[22] In support of the bill, Hunter Weathers of the College Republican Federation of Alabama argued that the new presumption would still let judges make alternate custody arrangements, but that it must be done under the “presumption of evidence,” and that requiring the findings of fact to be available could be helpful for the judge in any subsequent custody modifications.[23]
The proposed bill attempts to remedy some portions of Alabama’s child custody laws that are considered to be vague by offering specific definitions and uniform guidelines.[24] It would define “frequent and substantial contact” in joint custody situations to mean that the “child has equal or approximately equal time with both parents.”[25] Under current law, parents are only required to submit a parenting plan, which covers matters “relevant to the care and custody of the child,” when they are both requesting joint custody.[26] This bill would automatically require both parents to submit a parenting plan specifying the amount of time that the child would spend with each parent and if there would be any periods of time-sharing.[27] Deviations in the parenting plans would be authorized by the court in cases where domestic or family abuse has been established.[28] The court would also be authorized to establish a parenting plan that safeguards the child’s well-being in cases of domestic or family abuse or when the parents cannot agree on a plan.[29] The bill also introduces new punishments and remedies, such as penalties against a parent who files a motion for temporary relief in bad faith or if they violate a time-sharing schedule without good cause.[30] The Best Interest of the Child Protection Act would create a new default of equal parenting time, with the burden shifting towards requiring evidence to justify alternative custody arrangements.[31]
Revisions in favor of a joint custody presumption have also been shown through another proposed bill, House Bill 18, also known as the Good Dad Act, which would create a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child when there is a signed voluntary acknowledgement of paternity from the single mother and father.[32] This acknowledgement would extend “all rights and duties of a parent on the acknowledged father.”[33] Joint custody would be presumed if a parent lives within forty miles of the child and provides that neither parent may remove the child from the state without permission from the other parent or from the court.[34] Like House Bill 147, courts are to consider the same statutory factors when determining whether joint custody or a deviation is in the child’s best interest.[35] State Representative Patrick Sellers, the sponsor of the bill, explains that his push for a joint custody presumption is fueled by his experiences seeing single fathers struggle to be awarded time in a system that typically favors the mother having the majority of custody.[36] He also emphasizes the importance of the father’s presence in his child’s life and the detrimental effects upon the child when that is denied.[37] Both House Bills 147 and 18 have exemplified this enduring trend as they have been introduced under similarly drafted versions over recent years, but were all ultimately struck down.[38] These proposals reflect a combined effort for Alabama to revisit its child custody laws.
Alabama representatives continue to push for the legislature to redefine custody determinations in family law by advocating for uniform guidelines, increased transparency of a judge’s decision-making, and more equitable rights for both parents at the outset of the case.[39] Although there are strong arguments both for and against these changes, the best interest of the child must remain as the guiding principle upon which custody is determined.
[1] See H.B. 147, 2026 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2026); H.B. 228, 2025 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2026); H.B. 524, 2023 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2023).
[2] Ala. Code § 30-3-150 (2026).
[3] Id. § 30-3-152(a) (2026); Rigby v. Rigby, 268 So. 3d 76, 86 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).
[4] Ala. Code § 30-3-152(b) (2026); Ala. Code § 30-3-150(c) (2026).
[5] Ala. Code § 30-3-150(c) (2026).
[6] Williams v. Williams, 75 So. 3d 132, 139 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
[7] Ala. Code § 30-3-150 (2026).
[8] H.B. 147, 2026 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2026); see H.B. 228, 2025 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2026); H.B. 524, 2023 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2023).
[9] H.B. 147, 2026 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2026).
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Ala. Code § 30-3-152(c) (2026).
[14] Ashlyn Mitchell, New bill could revise child custody laws in Alabama, FOX 10 News (Feb. 15, 2025), https://www.fox10tv.com/2025/02/16/new-bill-could-revise-child-custody-laws-alabama/; Best Interest of the Child Protection Act – Shared Parenting, National Parents Organization, https://cumberlandtrialjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6d752-2025npoalabamabillhandout.pdf (last visited Feb. 11, 2026).
[15] H.B. 147, 2026 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2026).
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Jacob Holmes, Bill to create presumptive standard of joint custody gets first public hearing, Alabama Political Reporter (Feb. 28, 2025), https://www.alreporter.com/2025/02/28/bill-to-create-presumptive-standard-of-joint-custody-gets-first-public-hearing/#:~:text=It%20would%20presume%20for%20each,case%20or%20later%20in%20life.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] H.B. 147, 2026 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2026).
[25] Id.
[26] Ala. Code § 30-3-153(a) (2026).
[27] H.B. 147, 2026 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2026).
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] See Joint Custody Presumptions: How HB229 Changes the Game in Alabama Family Law, Clark Hall Law, https://clarkhalllaw.com/joint-custody-presumptions-how-hb229-changes-the-game-in-alabama-family law/#:~:text=Can%20the%20presumption%20of%20joint,joint%20custody%20arrangement%20under%20HB229 (last visited Feb. 12, 2026).
[32] H.B. 18, 2026 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2026).
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] New pre-filed bill could grant equal parenting rights to single Alabama fathers, Good Dad Act, https://gooddadact.com/news-articles/new-pre-filed-bill-could-grant-equal-parenting-rights-to-single-alabama-fathers (last visited Feb. 13, 2026).
[37] Id.
[38] AL HB63, BillTrack50, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1750182 (last visited Feb. 12, 2026); AL HB229, BillTrack50, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1823107 (last visited Feb. 12, 2026).
[39] Clark Hall Law, supra note 31; Good Dad Act, supra note 36.
American Journal of Trial Advocacy 