# A.B. v. J.B.

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · December 18, 2009 · 40 So. 3d 723

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4859198

## Case

- **Full name:** A.B. v. J.B.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** December 18, 2009
- **Citations:** 40 So. 3d 723
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Thomas
- **Judges:** Thompson, Bryan, Moore, Thomas, Pittman
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4859198

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting the compelling-reason requirement and explaining that “our caselaw more accurately holds that siblings may be separated if the trial court concludes, based on sufficient evidence in the record, that the separation will serve the best interests of the children at issue”
- reversing a judgment insofar as it required a parent to pay half of the child's expenses for extracurricular activities because, among other reasons, "[t]he final judgment … failed to include the language necessary to support an award under Rule 32(C)(4)[, Ala. R. Jud. Admin.]"
- reversing a judgment insofar as it required a parent to pay half of child’s expenses for extracurricular activities because, among other reasons, “[t]he final judgment ... failed to include the language necessary to support an award under Rule 32(C)(4)”
- reversing an order requiring wife to pay husband’s attorney fees that was entered without any evidence as to the amount of fees

## Opinion text

THOMAS, Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the result.
Although I concur in all other aspects of the main opinion, I concur only in the result in Part I of the main opinion, which is that portion of the opinion addressing the custody award in the present case. I do not agree that our caselaw does not require that the record reveal compelling reasons supporting a separation of siblings in a custody determination. See Alverson v. Alverson, 28 So.3d 784, 787-88 (Ala.Civ.App.2009); Mar dis v. Mardis, 660 So.2d 597 (Ala.Civ.App.1995); and Jensen v. Short, 494 So.2d 90 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). I do not see this requirement as imposing any undue burden on either parent or on the trial court, nor do I see it as anything *736 more than a guiding principle designed to assist the trial court in determining the best interest of the children whose custody it must decide.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4859198. Public record. Not legal advice.