Brandon v. Brandon, 113 So. 3d 638

Divorce decree (Feb. 25, 2009) in Tuscaloosa, mother had primary custody of two daughters; father had primary custody of the son; families resided in different counties (mother/daughters in Tuscaloosa, father/son in Pickens).
Mother sought emergency relief in Tuscaloosa to enforce summer visitation with the son, hold father in contempt, and modify postminority education costs for the older daughter.
Father counterclaimed for contempt and clarification, and moved to transfer all issues relating to the son to Pickens Circuit Court under § 30-3-5.
Father’s venue motion argued he and the son resided in Pickens County for at least three consecutive years prior to filing.
Trial court denied the transfer after a hearing in July 2012.
Court of Civil Appeals denied mandamus relief; this Court granted mandamus and directed transfer of the son-related claims to Pickens County; severance of claims was approved to effect venue choice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 30-3-5 allows the custodial parent to select venue for son-related custody claims.	Brandon asserts § 30-3-5 grants him venue choice for son claims.	Brandon argues the statute applies; mother contends to sever and keep some claims in Tuscaloosa.	Yes; custodial parent may select venue for claims involving the child.

Ex parte Inverness Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 153 (Ala.2000) (mandamus standards for challenging venue orders)
Ex parte Gates, 675 So.2d 371 (Ala.1996) (mandamus standard; proof of error needed for venue transfer)
Ex parte Pfizer, Inc., 746 So.2d 960 (Ala.1999) (mandamus review; burden on party challenging venue)
Ex parte Children’s Hosp. of Alabama, 931 So.2d 1 (Ala.2005) (principles for mandamus; venue-related relief)
Ex parte Finance America Corp., 507 So.2d 458 (Ala.1987) (burden on party raising improper venue; scope of review)
Ex parte Kane, 989 So.2d 509 (Ala.2008) (limitations on review; facts before trial court only)
Ex parte Lugo de Vega, 65 So.3d 886 (Ala.2010) (venue review limited to trial-record facts)
Ex parte Baker, 575 So.2d 98 (Ala.Civ.App.1990) (three-year residence and custody-related venue considerations)
Ex parte Hester, 682 So.2d 6 (Ala.1996) (custodial parent’s venue choice کنترل; severability discussion)
Ex parte Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 721 So.2d 1135 (Ala.1998) (statutory language—“shall” as mandatory)
Johnson v. Meadows, 628 So.2d 892 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (residence-based venue principles)
Ce-ruzzi v. Ceruzzi, 688 So.2d 850 (Ala.Civ. App.1997) (venue selection under statutory framework)