A period of temporary absence of the child or any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.” 5 . Our review of the record reveals no evidence concerning the father’s income for the years between the birth of the children in 2005 and 2009. The income information contained in the record regarding the father re-fleets that he earned $4,807 per month at the time of trial and that he had earned $69,000 in 2009. MOORE, Judge, concurring specially. With regard to that part of the main opinion addressing the trial court’s failure to include the health-insurance premiums in the calculation of the father’s child-support obligation, I concur only because the father did not ask this court to overrule past decisions on that issue such as Brown v. Brown, 719 So.2d 228 (Ala.Civ. App.1998) (<HOLDING>), and Bertram v. Doss, 709 So.2d 1274, 1276-77
holding that the trial court had not erred in including the cost of health insurance covering both the custodial parent and the parties child in determining the noncustodial parents childsupport obligation holding that the trial court had erred in including only the difference between the cost of single healthinsurance coverage and family healthinsurance coverage in determining the noncustodial parents childsupport obligation holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child holding that custodial parents death does not terminate noncustodial parents child support obligations set forth in dissolution decree holding that where interference with visitation becomes so pervasive as to harm the childs close relationship with the noncustodial parent there can be a conclusion drawn that the actions of the custodial parent show a disregard for the best interests of the child warranting a change of custody