Opinion

Hein v. Fuller

  • 93 So. 3d 961
  • 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 93
  • 2012 WL 1237758
Court
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Filed
Apr 13, 2012
Status
Published
Author
Moore
On the bench
Bryan, Moore, Only, Pittman, Thomas, Thompson, Writing
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.0%

explaining that the language of Rule 32(B)(7)(e) specifically acknowledged that family or dependent coverage could include children who are not the subject of the child-support obligation but still required “that the ‘actual amount of the total insurance premium’ be used in the child-support-obligation calculation”

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that the language of Rule 32(B)(7)(e) specifically acknowledged that family or dependent coverage could include children who are not the subject of the child-support obligation but still required “that the ‘actual amount of the total insurance premium’ be used in the child-support-obligation calculation”
  • concluding Canada, not Alabama, was the child’s home state and “the trial court in Alabama lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination”
  • discussing the inclusion of the cost of health-insurance coverage in a child-support determination

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MOORE, Judge,

concurring specially.

With regard to that part of the main opinion addressing the trial court’s failure to include the health-insurance premiums in the calculation of the father’s child-support obligation, I concur only because the father did not ask this court to overrule past decisions on that issue such as Brown v. Brown, 719 So.2d 228 (Ala.Civ. *974 App.1998) (holding that the trial court had not erred in including the cost of health insurance covering both the custodial parent and the parties’ child in determining the noncustodial parent’s child-support obligation), and Bertram v. Doss, 709 So.2d 1274, 1276-77 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (holding that the trial court had erred in including only the difference between the cost of single health-insurance coverage and family health-insurance coverage in determining the noncustodial parent’s child-support obligation). I believe the decisions in those cases have misconstrued Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., and that it is absurd to include premiums for health insurance that covers a custodial parent in calculating the noncustodial parent’s “child-support obligation.”

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.