Alabama House Bill HB19

Alabama 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/25/25
• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 6/25/25
• Refer: 1/13/26
• Report Pass: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/15/26

Caption

Child custody; rebuttable presumption of joint physical custody and substantial parenting time created, final order of the court further provided for

Summary

HB19 revises Alabama’s child custody statutes to create a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody, frequent and continuing contact, and substantial parenting time with both parents are in the child’s best interest, except where domestic or family violence is present. If the presumption is not overcome, the court must award joint legal custody and meaningful parenting time to both parents. The bill also requires courts to make specific findings when they decline to award joint custody or substantial parenting time, and it clarifies that joint custody does not necessarily mean equal physical time. The bill further expands what must be addressed in a final custody order. Courts would have to specify parenting time for school year, summer, holidays, birthdays, communication between parents and children, access to medical and educational records, participation in school and extracurricular activities, communication about medical appointments, child support, and health insurance. It also removes the existing requirement that parents submit an agreed-upon parenting plan covering those matters, replacing it with court-directed requirements in the final order.

Impact

HB19 would amend Sections 30-3-150 through 30-3-153 of the Code of Alabama 1975, shifting custody law toward a stronger default preference for joint legal custody and substantial parenting time with both parents. It would require judges to consider joint custody in every case and to make specific findings when the presumption is rebutted, while preserving the court’s ability to choose any custody arrangement that serves the child’s best interest. The bill also standardizes custody orders by mandating detailed provisions on parenting schedules, communication, records access, support, and insurance, and it eliminates the prior requirement that parents submit an agreed parenting plan.

Sentiment

The bill appears to reflect a generally pro-joint-custody policy approach, emphasizing continued involvement of both parents in children’s lives. The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. The bill’s last recorded action was re-referral to committee in the House of Origin, suggesting it remained under committee consideration.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s creation of a rebuttable presumption favoring joint legal custody and substantial parenting time, which could be viewed as limiting judicial discretion in cases where one parent argues that another arrangement better serves the child. Another likely issue is the exception for domestic or family violence, since the bill preserves that carve-out but does not otherwise detail how courts should weigh safety concerns beyond the existing best-interest framework. The requirement for specific findings when the presumption is overcome may also be debated as adding procedural burden, while supporters would likely see it as promoting transparency and consistent custody decisions.