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
BRYAN, Judge,
concurring in the result only.
Regarding the main opinion, I concur in the result only. However, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Judge Moore in his special writing.