# Hein v. Fuller

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · April 13, 2012 · 93 So. 3d 961

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4876073

## Case

- **Full name:** Stacey Mallette FULLER n/k/a Stacey Mallette Hein v. Abel FULLER
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** April 13, 2012
- **Citations:** 93 So. 3d 961; 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 93; 2012 WL 1237758
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moore
- **Judges:** Bryan, Moore, Only, Pittman, Thomas, Thompson, Writing
- **Cited by:** 7 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/4876073

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 th…
- 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

## Opinion text

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.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4876073. Public record. Not legal advice.