Rel: August 2, 2024

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. 

Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, 

Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections 

may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

SPECIAL TERM, 2024

_________________________

CL-2024-0434

_________________________

Ex parte D.B. and A.B.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: In the matter of I.B.)

(Blount Juvenile Court: JU-23-56.01)

EDWARDS, Judge.

D.B. and A.B. ("the custodians") seek a writ of mandamus directing 

the Blount Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") to set aside its May 21, 

2024, order. That order determined that an August 9, 2023, order of the 

juvenile court awarding the custodians legal custody of I.B. ("the child") 
CL-2024-0434

2

was not a final judgment and was therefore an award of pendente lite 

legal custody that was subject to reconsideration by the juvenile court at 

an adjudicatory hearing regarding the dependency petition that had been 

filed by the Blount County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") in 

February 2023. The materials provided in support of both the petition 

for the writ of mandamus filed by the custodians and the answers to the 

petition filed by DHR and the child's guardian ad litem provide the 

following procedural history of the dependency action involving the child.

On February 2, 2023, DHR filed in the juvenile court a petition 

seeking to have the child, who is the child of C.F. ("the father") and S.B. 

("the mother"), declared dependent. On February 17, 2023, the juvenile 

court awarded DHR custody of the child pending an adjudicatory trial, 

which the juvenile court set for May 11, 2023. The juvenile court 

continued the trial to August 3, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the custodians, 

DHR, the child's guardian ad litem, and the father entered into an 

agreement, pursuant to which the father admitted the dependency of the 

child and was awarded supervised visitation. The written agreement 

reflected that the mother was not present at the August 3, 2023, trial, 
CL-2024-0434

3

and was also apparently not represented by counsel. The agreement also 

contained the following provision: "Review hearing to be set in 60 days. 

If all requirements for reunification are not completed, case will be 

closed." Attached to the agreement is a document bearing the title 

"Reunification Plan," which contains a list of various tasks. The juvenile 

court entered what it entitled "Order for Dependency and Custody" on 

August 4, 2023; however, it amended that order on August 9, 2023, to 

include a specific finding of dependency, which had inadvertently been 

omitted from the August 4, 2023, order. The August 9, 2023, "Order for 

Dependency and Custody" incorporated the provisions set out in the 

August 3, 2023, agreement and contained the following provisions from 

the "Reunification Plan" appended to the August 3, 2023, agreement:

"To reunite with the minor child, the parents shall 

comply with the following:

"1. Maintain a close, loving relationship with the 

minor child by consistent and frequent telephone 

contact and visitation;

"2. Establish and maintain a safe, stable home and 

lifestyle without domestic violence, drug or alcohol 

abuse for reasonable length of time;
CL-2024-0434

4

"3. Submit to random drug testing on color code at 

his/her own expense and provide test results to the 

Court and DHR;

"4. Successfully complete parenting classes 

through a court approved provider;

"5. Submit to a psychological evaluation and follow 

all recommendations of said evaluation;

"6. Attend individual and/or family counseling 

through a court approved provider; 

"7. Comply with Individual Service Plan ('ISP') 

implemented by DHR;

"8. Maintain stable employment and show an 

ability to provide for said child financially;

"9. Obey all state, federal and local laws;

"10. Resolve any outstanding criminal matters;

"11. Keep the Court and custodians advised of 

his/her current address and telephone number; 

"12. Obtain a favorable home study (if residing 

outside Blount County);

"13. Petition for Return of Custody."

In addition, the August 9, 2023, amended "Order for Dependency and 

Custody" stated: "Review hearing remains set October 30, 2023, at 9:00 
CL-2024-0434

5

a.m. in Blount County Juvenile Court .... Case shall be closed at said 

hearing if all requirements for reunification plan are not completed."

In September 2023, the juvenile court entered an order 

incorporating an agreement of the custodians, DHR, the child's guardian 

ad litem, and the father respecting the father's visitation. The September 

2023 order specifically stated that all other provisions of the August 9, 

2023, "Order for Dependency and Custody" remained in full force and 

effect. In addition, the juvenile court reiterated that the case was set for 

a review hearing on October 23, 2023. The case-action-summary sheet

contained in the materials does not reflect whether the October 23, 2023, 

review hearing was held or continued, but the parties indicate that it was 

not held. 

On October 31, 2023, the father filed a motion to hold the custodians 

in contempt, which the juvenile court set for a hearing to be held on 

January 8, 2024. The juvenile court reset the contempt hearing for 

March 4, 2024, April 22, 2024, and April 29, 2024. At the April 29, 2024, 

contempt hearing, the father apparently made an oral motion to set aside 

the August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and Custody." On May 6, 
CL-2024-0434

6

2024, the child's guardian ad litem filed a brief in support of the father's 

oral motion. The guardian ad litem contended in her brief in support of 

the father's motion that the father was entitled to relief from the August 

9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and Custody" pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), 

Ala. R. Civ. P., because, she said, the order had inadvertently been titled 

"Final Order for Dependency," which, she said, was a mistake entitling 

the father to relief from the August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and 

Custody" based on "aggravating circumstances." She concluded her brief 

in support of the father's oral motion with the following statement: 

"While it may have taken [eight] months for counsel for the biological 

father, the Guardian ad Litem, and counsel for [DHR] to realize they had 

been operating under a Final Order inadvertently, this is the exact 

reason Rule 60(b) was created."

The custodians responded to the father's oral motion and the child's 

guardian ad litem's brief in support of the father's oral motion. They 

argued that Rule 60(b) could not be applied to relieve the father of the 

operation of the August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and Custody" 

based on his allegation that he had not understood that order to have 
CL-2024-0434

7

been a final judgment because the Rule 60(b) motion had been filed more 

than four months after the entry of that order. See Rule 60(b) (stating 

that "[t]he motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for 

reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than four (4) months after the judgment, 

order, or proceeding was entered or taken). The custodians also relied on 

Gray v. Bain, 164 So. 3d 553 (Ala. 2014) (plurality opinion), to argue that, 

because the father had entered into an agreement that resulted in the 

entry of the August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and Custody," Rule 

60(b) could not provide him relief for mere mistake or inadvertence.1 

1The opinion in Gray provides: 

"'Rule 60(b)(1)[, Fed. R. Civ. P.,] authorizes the court to give 

relief from a judgment, order, or proceeding for "mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,"' but 'judgments 

entered as a result of settlements may be reopened [only] 

when fraud or mutual mistake is shown.' 11 Charles Alan 

Wright, Arthur K. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice 

& Procedure § 2858 (2012). The reason for this is that, 

although a mutual mistake of fact will permit a court to 

reform or rescind a binding settlement agreement, a 

unilateral mistake does not justify such relief. 'Unilateral 

mistakes do not support reformation (absent some fraud or 

misrepresentation). Moreover, one party is not customarily 

charged to know what is on the other party's mind, so as to 

concoct some constructive mutual mistake where there is but 
CL-2024-0434

8

On May 21, 2024, the juvenile court entered an order purporting to 

grant the father relief from the August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency 

and Custody" pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 60(b)(6). In that order, 

the juvenile court explained that "the intention of the parties, as reflected 

by the agreement on August 3, 2023, which was the basis for this Court's 

August 9, 2023, order was for the April 29, 2024, hearing to be an 

adjudication hearing for the purposes of determining a final disposition 

of custody." The juvenile court also stated that"[t]he fact that the August 

9, 2023, order was styled in a way that would normally indicate, in this

jurisdiction, a final determination of custody, was unintentional and in 

error." The custodians then filed this timely petition for the writ of 

mandamus, seeking review of the May 21, 2024, order.

" '"Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be 

issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the 

petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the 

respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) 

the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked 

jurisdiction of the court." '"

a unilateral mistake.' 27 Richard A. Lord, Williston on 

Contracts § 70:109 (4th ed. 2003)."

164 So. 3d at 564 (plurality opinion) (footnote omitted).
CL-2024-0434

9

Ex parte A.M.P., 997 So. 2d 1008, 1014 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Ex parte 

Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So. 2d 307, 309-10 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn 

Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995)).

In their mandamus petition, the custodians argue that the father's 

Rule 60(b) motion sought relief on the basis of inadvertence or mistake 

and, therefore, they say, the father's motion was not timely filed within 

four months of the entry of the August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency 

and Custody." The custodians also argue that the father provided no 

proof that aggravating circumstances existed such that he would be 

entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Finally, they again invoke the 

holding of Gray to argue that the father would not have been entitled to 

relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) based solely on mistake because he had

voluntarily entered into the August 3, 2023, agreement that was 

incorporated into the August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and 

Custody."

The custodians have presented a compelling argument against the 

ability of the juvenile court to have utilized Rule 60(b) nine months after 

the entry of the August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and Custody," 
CL-2024-0434

10

but we are not able to grant their petition. Although the juvenile court 

purported to grant relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), what it actually did was 

to interpret and clarify the August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and 

Custody." "A trial court possesses an inherent power over its own 

judgments that authorizes it to interpret, clarify, implement, or enforce 

those judgments." Gild v. Holmes, 680 So. 2d 326, 329 (Ala. Civ. App.

1996). The question that the father's oral motion to set aside the August 

9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and Custody" raised was whether that 

order was, in fact, a final disposition of the child's custody or whether 

further proceedings were envisioned before a final disposition of custody 

would be made. In its May 21, 2024, order, the juvenile court determined 

that the August 3, 2023, agreement incorporated into the August 9, 2023, 

"Order for Dependency and Custody" reflected the intent of the parties 

that the final disposition of custody was to be made at or after the review 

hearing, which was originally set for October 2023 but was finally held 

in April 2024. In addition, the juvenile court clarified that any language 

that might have indicated that the August 9, 2023, "Order for 

Dependency and Custody" was intended to be a final dispositional order 
CL-2024-0434

11

had been mistakenly used and that the order was not intended to 

accomplish a final disposition of the child's custody.

As both this court and our supreme court have recognized, "unlike 

other civil cases, dependency and termination-of-parental-rights 

proceedings may involve multiple 'final' appealable orders before the 

juvenile case is closed." Ex parte T.C., 96 So. 3d 123, 130 (Ala. 2012). As 

we explained in S.P. v. E.T., 957 So. 2d 1127, 1131 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005):

"Unlike many other types of cases, dependency 

proceedings often involve a series of appealable dispositional 

custody orders. Eventually the trial court enters an order in a 

dependency proceeding that is intended to be its 'final'

dispositional order as to the pending case, i.e., a custodial 

placement that is intended to be permanent, to the extent 

custody awards can be permanent. See Ex parte J.P., 641 So.

2d [276,] 278 [(Ala. 1994)] ('by its very nature, custody is 

always temporary and never permanent' because it is always 

subject to change based upon an appropriate petition and 

evidence). Under ideal circumstances, such final dispositional 

orders coincide with the end of the child's dependency, i.e., the 

child has a proper custodian 'and' is no longer 'in need of care 

or supervision' by persons other than the custodian. ... In 

other words, under ideal circumstances, the final 

dispositional order results in a custody award wherein the 

parent or custodian is able and willing to have the care, 

custody, and control of the child, free from any intervention or 

supervision by the state under the dependency statutes."
CL-2024-0434

12

In one sense, the custodians are correct that the August 9, 2023, 

"Order for Dependency and Custody" was a "final" judgment; that is, the 

August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and Custody" was final for 

purposes of appeal. "Under our caselaw, a formal determination by a 

juvenile court of a child's dependency coupled with an award of custody 

incident to that determination will give rise to an appealable final 

judgment even if the custody award is denominated as a 'temporary'

award and further review of the case is envisioned." J.J. v. J.H.W., 27 

So. 3d 519, 522 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). However, the language in the 

August 9, 2023, "Order for Dependency and Custody" setting out certain 

tasks for the father to complete before the scheduled October 2023 review 

hearing, coupled with the statement that the father's failure to complete 

the reunification plan by the date of the review hearing would result in 

the closing of the case, compels the conclusion that further review of the 

reunification efforts of DHR and the progress of the father was clearly 

contemplated. That language therefore supports the juvenile court's 

conclusion that the disposition of custody in the August 9, 2023, "Order 

for Dependency and Custody," was not intended, at that time, to be the 
CL-2024-0434

13

final, or "permanent," disposition of the child's custody. Accordingly, we 

deny the custodians' petition for the writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

Moore, P.J., and Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.