PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Scott Gibson, James Hezzie Sparks, Johnny D. Lane, David Alan Hampton, and Tony Ellis (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the petitioners") are each incarcerated in the Winston County jail on contempt orders related to each petitioner's failure to pay child support. Judge Michael Newell, acting as a juvenile court judge for the Winston Juvenile Court, entered judgments finding Gibson, Lane, and Ellis in contempt for failure to pay child support as ordered by the court, and he ordered each arrested. As a result, Gibson has been incarcerated since July 24, 2009, Lane has been incarcerated since October 21, 2009, and Ellis has been incarcerated since August 17, 2009. Judge Newell also presided over domestic-relations actions in the Winston Circuit Court ("the circuit court") in which he found Sparks and Hampton in contempt for their failure to pay court-ordered child support, and he ordered that those two petitioners be arrested. Sparks has been incarcerated since late May 2009, and Hampton has been incarcerated since November 23, 2009. None of the petitioners timely appealed the contempt orders pursuant to which they are incarcerated.

The record indicates that, in December 2009, Judge Newell conducted a hearing for each petitioner and offered to release each upon the payment of 25% of the amount of the petitioner's accrued child-support arrearage. There is no written order documenting those conditions for release.

On April 12, 2010, the petitioners each initiated new actions by filing in the circuit court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking their release from incarceration. In those petitions for habeas relief, each petitioner alleged that he was unable to pay the amount required to secure his freedom.

The habeas petitions were assigned to Judge John Bentley, who, on April 16, 2010, conducted a joint hearing on all five of the habeas petitions. At the hearing, Judge Bentley heard only arguments of counsel but did not take ore tenus evidence. Each petitioner argued that he lacked the ability to comply with the terms for his release, that continued incarceration did not have the effect of coercing compliance because of his alleged inability to comply, and that the continued incarceration, under the facts, violated his due-process rights.

Following the hearing, on April 23, 2010, the petitioners each filed a purported Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to alter, amend, or vacate a judgment, although Judge Bentley had not yet issued judgments ruling on the habeas petitions.1 On May 5, 2010, Judge Bentley entered judgments dismissing all five actions for a purported lack of jurisdiction because the habeas petitions had not been considered by Judge Newell. One of the dismissal orders stated: "Court has no jurisdiction. Judge Newell sits as circuit judge in these matters pursuant to Admin. Order & statute."2 Each petitioner appealed; this court has consolidated the appeals.

In their appeals of the denial of their habeas petitions, the petitioners fail to address the circuit court's finding that this matter should have been addressed to Judge Newell. Rather, the petitioners argue only that the "circuit court" has jurisdiction over habeas petitions arising in civil actions. Under § 15-21-6, Ala.Code 1975, the circuit court in the county in which the petitioners are incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider the habeas petitions; that section requires that the petition be addressed to a circuit judge. Section 15-21-6 specifies:

(Emphasis added.)

All circuit courts have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Culbreth, 966 So.2d 910, 912 (Ala.2006). In Ex parte Culbreth, supra, our supreme court explained that § 15-21-6 implicates the issue of proper venue, rather than jurisdiction. "Venue ... addresses `[t]he county or other territory over which a trial court has jurisdiction.' Black's Law Dictionary 1591 (8th ed.2004)." Ex parte Culbreth, 966 So.2d at 912. In that case, because the record failed to demonstrate that the State had properly objected on the basis of venue, our supreme court held that the trial court had erred in dismissing the petitioner's habeas petition. Ex parte Culbreth, supra.

Before this court, the State argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the habeas petitions based on § 15-21-23, Ala.Code 1975, which provides:

The State contends that the habeas petitions must fail because, it says, the circuit court had jurisdiction over the contempt orders pursuant to which the petitioners are incarcerated. In explaining § 15-21-23, the Court of Criminal Appeals has stated:

Boykin v. State, 432 So.2d 17, 19 (Ala. Crim.App.1983).

However, the petitioners in this case do not attack the contempt orders themselves. Rather, they contend in their habeas petitions that, in setting the conditions of their release on the contempt orders, Judge Newell exceeded his permissible jurisdiction by issuing the orders requiring their continued, allegedly unlawful incarceration. "`"[T]he sole function of habeas corpus is to provide relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody."'" Looney v. State, 881 So.2d 1061, 1063 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (quoting Taylor v. State, 455 So.2d 270, 271 (Ala. Crim.App.1984), quoting in turn Cook v. Hanberry, 592 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1979)).

We conclude that the petitioners' habeas petitions properly invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court, that venue under § 15-21-6 is proper in the circuit court, and that Judge Bentley, as a circuit court judge, may properly consider the habeas petitions. Accordingly, we must conclude that Judge Bentley erred in dismissing the habeas petitions. We reverse the judgments of dismissal and remand the cause for Judge Bentley to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the habeas petitions.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the judges concur.