See A.B. v. J.B., 40 So.3d 723, 729 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). Instead, the best-interest standard applies.

"[A]lthough the amount of child support established by the guidelines creates a presumption as to the correct amount of child support to be awarded, that presumption is rebuttable, and, under certain circumstances, a trial court has the discretion to award child support outside the guidelines." A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. 3d 723, 733 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). Furthermore, Rule 82(C)(4), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., provides:

However, although the mother is correct that "Alabama law generally encourages trial courts not to separate siblings," E.F.B. v. L.S.T., 157 So. 3d 917, 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014), she is incorrect that the father was required to establish a "compelling reason" to separate the siblings before the trial court could have done so. This court rejected the requirement that a custody judgment that separates siblings must be supported by a "compelling reason" for doing so in A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. 3d 723, 729 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ; see also Stocks v. Stocks, 49 So. 3d 1220, 1232 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (recognizing that the holding of A.B. rejected the requirement that the separation of siblings be supported by a "compelling reason"). In A.B., this court explained that, under Alabama law, "siblings may be separated if the trial court concludes, based on sufficient evidence in the record, that the separation will serve the best interests of the children at issue."

See Caswell v. Caswell, 101 So.3d 769, 775 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (citing Deas v. Deas, 747 So.2d 332, 337 (Ala.Civ.App.1999)) (holding that private-school tuition and extracurricular-activity expenses are not part of basic child support contemplated by the Rule 32 child-support guidelines). See also A.B. v. J.B., 40 So.3d 723, 733 (Ala.Civ.App.2009). It is well settled that “matters of child support are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent evidence of an abuse of discretion or evidence that the judgment is plainly or palpably wrong.”

See Caswell v. Caswell, [Ms. 2110004, July 27, 2012] _ So. 3d _, _ (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (citing Peas v. Peas, 747 So. 2d 332, 337 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999)) (holding that private-school tuition and extracurricular-activity expenses are not part of basic child support contemplated by the Rule 32 child-support guidelines). See also A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. 3d 723, 733 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). It is well settled that "matters of child support are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent evidence of an abuse of discretion or evidence that the judgment is plainly or palpably wrong."

THOMAS, Judge, concurring specially. Although I authored Alverson v. Alverson, 28 So.3d 784 (Ala.Civ.App. 2009), in which I applied the "compelling-reason" requirement to a custody judgment separating siblings, and although I issued a special writing concurring in the result in A.B. v. J.B., 40 So.3d 723, 735-36 (Ala.Civ. App. 2009) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result), in which I maintained that Alabama law required evidence of a compelling reason to support a custody judgment separating siblings, a majority of this court has determined that "our caselaw more accurately holds that siblings may be separated if the trial court concludes, based on sufficient evidence in the record, that the separation will serve the best interests of the children at issue." A.B., 40 So.3d at 729.

rejected the compelling-reason standard and held that "our caselaw more accurately holds that siblings may be separated if the trial court concludes, based on sufficient evidence in the record, that the separation will serve the best interests of the children at issue." A.B. v. J.B., 40 So.3d 723, 729 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (citing, among other authority, Alverson, 28 So.3d at 790 (Moore, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part)).

The husband does not argue that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to order him to pay for a vehicle for the child as a component of child support. Rather, the husband cites to A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. 3d 723 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), in which this court reversed a trial court's judgment ordering the noncustodial parent to pay one-half the expenses for the minor child's extracurricular activities. In A.B., this court held:

The husband does not argue that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to order him to pay for a vehicle for the child as a component of child support. Rather, the husband cites to A.B. v. J.B., 40 So.3d 723 (Ala.Civ.App.2009), in which this court reversed a trial court's judgment ordering the noncustodial parent to pay one-half the expenses for the minor child's extracurricular activities. In A.B., this court held:

The husband does not argue that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to order him to pay for a vehicle for the child as a component of child support. Rather, the husband cites to A.B. v. J.B., 40 So. 3d 723 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), in which this court reversed a trial court's judgment ordering the noncustodial parent to pay one-half the expenses for the minor child's extracurricular activities. In A.B., this court held: