In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court of Alabama, in the case of Christopher v. Christopher, (Limestone Circuit Court, DR10-279.02; Civil Court of Appeals, 2111039) expressly overruled the longstanding case of Bayliss v. Bayliss.
For those of you who are familiar with family law in the State of Alabama, the Bayliss Court, 24 years ago, interpreted the child support statute to authorize post-minority support for college education. In essence, that Court made new law even though the age of majority is exclusively controlled by Statute. Based on Bayliss, the Courts have slowly expanded that ruling to including other post-minority expenses since they were tied to college education.
Now, our Supreme Court has made a decision that the Legislature of Alabama has not enacted a specific statutory change in its Domestic Relations laws to permit post-minority support for college education. They said the Bayliss Court nonetheless interpreted the child support statute to authorize post-minority support for college education in spite of the fact that the age of majority is controlled exclusively by Statute. The Court went on to say: “reversing Bayliss and returning the Legislative power to decide if post-minority educational support should be authorized in a divorce case, does not make new law but, instead vindicates the old one from misrepresentation.” In Bayliss, the Court rejected the long-standing construction of Sec 30-3-1 that “children of the marriage” referred to minors only.
This Court made several comments about the definition of “child” or “children”, and the current statutes that addressed support and majority that were before the Bayliss Court. They also made comments about the fact that there have been no new statutory laws concerning children or child support, changing the definition of children over the last 24 years, which is the Bayliss timeframe. Apparently, this Court has said that they will let the Legislature make the statutory laws and this Court shall interpret those laws.
That being said, this decision will not disturb final post-minority educational support orders entered before this date. The Court has said that where parties acted in good-faith believing past decisions, they would be protected, although future decisions are to be overruled. Accordingly, this Court expressly overruled Bayliss because the child custody statute does not authorize a Court in a divorce action to require a non-custodial parent to be pay educational support for children over the age of 19 years.
The Judgment of the Civil Court of Appeals is therefore reversed and the case is remanded to that Court for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion.
