Task: Text Completion
Input (English): Appeals’ explanation of the issue in T.C. v. Mac.M., 96 So.3d 115, 117 (Ala.Civ.App.2011), also is helpful: “This court has explained the circumstances under which a juvenile court’s order or judgment is sufficiently final to support an appeal: “ ‘Although a juvenile court’s orders in a dependency case are, in one sense, never “final” because the court retains jurisdiction to modify its orders upon a showing of changed circumstances, see C.L. v. D.H., 916 So.2d 622 (Ala.Civ.App.2005); Committee Comments, Rule 4, Ala. R.App. P., this court has always treated formal dependency adjudications as final and appealable judgments despite the fact that they are scheduled for further review by the juvenile court.’ “D.P. v. Limestone Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 28 So.3d 759, 762 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (<HOLDING>).” Fully in keeping with the “well established” 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order denying a motion for reconsideration constituted a final order because at the time the order was entered all nonsuited claims had been adjudicated and were no longer a bar to finality (B) holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award (C) holding that because trial courts order did not dispose of the defendants counterclaim that order was not a final judgment that would support an appeal (D) holding that order awarding maternal grandmother primary physical custody of a child in a dependency case was a final appealable order as opposed to a pendente lite order (E) holding that an order finding with regard to the father that reasonable efforts at reunification were no longer required of the department of human resources was a permanency order that was sufficiently final to support an appeal that order also expressly left in place previous awards of legal custody incident to dependency findings
Output (English): (E)