Ex parte C.B.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: In the matter of O.W.) (Franklin Juvenile Court: JU-20-290.01).

Rel: September 26, 2025

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, 2025
_________________________

CL-2025-0653
_________________________

Ex parte C.B.S.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Matter of O.W.)

(Franklin Juvenile Court: JU-20-290.01)

MOORE, Presiding Judge.

C.B.S. ("the custodian") has petitioned this court for a writ of

mandamus directing the Franklin Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court")

to grant her motion to dismiss the underlying case, which involves a

motion by G.D. ("the mother") seeking the modification of the custody of

O.W. ("the child"). For the following reasons, we grant the petition and

issue the writ.
CL-2025-0653

Background

The materials before this court show that, on June 26, 2020, the

Franklin County Department of Human Resources ("DHR") commenced

a dependency action in the juvenile court relating to the child; the clerk

of the juvenile court assigned that action case number JU-20-290.01. In

a series of orders entered in case number JU-20-290.01, the juvenile court

determined that the child was dependent and placed the child in a foster-

care home with the mother, who was a minor. On July 29, 2022, the

juvenile court entered in case number JU-20-290.01 a final judgment

("the July 29, 2022, judgment") that provided, in pertinent part:

"Based upon the stipulation of facts, the [c]ourt finds
and ORDERS as follows:

"1) That the ... child ... remains dependent as
defined by the Code of Alabama [1975], § 12-15-
102(8).

"2) Temporary custody is vested with [the
custodian].

"3) DHR is relieved of custody.

"4) The parents shall have supervised visitation
as the parties agree.

"5) The matter shall be set for a review hearing
at the request of one of the parties.

2
CL-2025-0653

"6) The hearing previously scheduled for
October 31, 2022, is CANCELED."

(Capitalization in original.) No further action was taken in case number

JU-20-290.01 for over two years.

On August 19, 2024, the mother filed a handwritten letter

requesting a modification of the July 29, 2022, judgment and seeking an

award of sole custody of the child. On November 7, 2024, the juvenile

court conducted a "review hearing," and, on November 12, 2024, the

juvenile court entered an order maintaining custody of the child with the

custodian but enlarging the visitation rights of the mother and ordering

the custodian to provide the mother with certain information relating to

the child. On June 6, 2025, after another "review hearing," the juvenile

court again modified the visitation provision of the July 29, 2022,

judgment to further expand the mother's visitation rights.

On July 29, 2025, the custodian, through newly retained counsel,

filed a motion to dismiss the case. The custodian argued that the July

29, 2022, judgment was a final judgment and that the juvenile court had

lost jurisdiction to amend that judgment in case number JU-20-290.01.

The custodian argued that the juvenile court could modify the July 29,

2022, judgment only in a separate action. On July 30, 2025, the juvenile

3
CL-2025-0653

court summarily denied the custodian's motion to dismiss. On August

13, 2025, the custodian filed her petition for the writ of mandamus with

this court.1

Standard of Review

The denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction is reviewable by a petition for the writ of mandamus. See Ex

parte F.G., 383 So. 3d 402 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023).

"This Court has consistently held that the writ of mandamus
is an extraordinary and drastic writ and that a party seeking
such a writ must meet certain criteria. We will issue the writ
of mandamus only when (1) the petitioner has a clear legal
right to the relief sought; (2) the respondent has an imperative
duty to perform and has refused to do so; (3) the petitioner has
no other adequate remedy; and (4) this Court's jurisdiction is
properly invoked. Ex parte Mercury Fin. Corp., 715 So. 2d
196, 198 (Ala. 1997). Because mandamus is an extraordinary
remedy, the standard by which this Court reviews a petition
for the writ of mandamus is to determine whether the trial
court has clearly abused its discretion. See Ex parte Rudolph,
515 So. 2d 704, 706 (Ala. 1987)."

1This court has original jurisdiction over petitions for the writ of

mandamus arising from juvenile-court proceedings. See Ala. Code 1975,
§ 12-3-11. The custodian was unable to secure a transcript of the
hearings in the underlying case; however, we find that the parties have
sufficiently complied with Rule 21(a)(1)(F), Ala. R. App. P. (requiring a
petitioner to include an appendix containing "copies of all parts of the
record that are essential to understanding the matters set forth in the
petition"), to enable this court to perform its review. See Ex parte
Aldridge, 291 So. 3d 1184, 1190 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).
4
CL-2025-0653

Ex parte Flint Constr. Co., 775 So. 2d 805, 808 (Ala. 2000). In reviewing

the denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,

this court does not afford the ruling of the juvenile court a presumption

of correctness. See Ex parte Diefenbach, 64 So. 3d 1091, 1093 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2010).

Analysis

Generally, when a juvenile court enters a judgment awarding

"temporary custody" of a dependent child to a nonparent as a conclusive

disposition of the child, the judgment is considered a final judgment

awarding "permanent custody" to the nonparent, see Ex parte J.P., 641

So. 2d 276, 278 (Ala. 1994) (explaining that all custody awards are

inherently temporary but that a permanent-custody award stands until

modified due to changed circumstances), even if the juvenile court

reserves jurisdiction to conduct a review of the case. See J.F. v. J.S., 377

So. 3d 524, 525 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022). A juvenile court may retain

jurisdiction to modify a final child-custody determination entered in a

5
CL-2025-0653

dependency case. See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-1172 and § 12-15-117.1.3

If so, to properly invoke the continuing jurisdiction of the juvenile court,

the petitioner must file a modification petition under a new case number4

and must pay the appropriate filing fee, see J.F. v. J.S., supra; T.J.H. v.

S.N.F., 960 So. 2d 669, 673 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006), unless the fee is

waived.5 See V.L. v. A.W., 275 So. 3d 156 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). A party

2Section 12-15-117(a) provides, in pertinent part:

"Once a child has been adjudicated dependent ..., jurisdiction
of the juvenile court shall terminate when the child becomes
21 years of age unless, prior thereto, the judge of the juvenile
court terminates its jurisdiction by explicitly stating in a
written order that it is terminating jurisdiction over the case
involving the child."

The juvenile court did not explicitly terminate its jurisdiction, so it
retained jurisdiction to modify the custody of the child.

3Section 12-15-117.1 confirms the "continuing jurisdiction of the
juvenile court to modify and enforce a judgment in cases filed in juvenile
court …."

4The custodian contends that the mother would have had to file a

petition to modify the July 29, 2022, judgment in the Lauderdale Juvenile
Court because, she says, all the parties and the child had moved to
Lauderdale County, see Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-302(c); however, we
express no opinion on the venue issue, which is not ripe for review based
on our disposition of this mandamus petition.

5The custodian asserts that the mother failed to pay the filing fee

or to obtain a waiver of the fee when she filed her motion to modify the
6
CL-2025-0653

does not invoke the continuing jurisdiction of the juvenile court to modify

a final judgment entered in a dependency case by filing a postjudgment

motion in the same case number. See J.F. v. J.S., supra.

In this case, the juvenile court entered a final judgment in case

number JU-20-290.01 on July 29, 2022. The judgment awarded the

custodian permanent custody of the child, awarded the mother

visitation,6 relieved DHR of custody, and closed the matter, except for

review upon the request of the parties. The mother had 14 days from

July 29, 2022, to file a postjudgment motion directed to that judgment.

See Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P. When no timely postjudgment motion was

filed, the juvenile court lost jurisdiction over case number JU-20-290.01.

See Ex parte Madison Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 261 So. 3d 381, 385 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2017). More than two years later, the mother filed a letter in

case number JU-20-290.01, which the juvenile court treated as a motion

July 29, 2022, judgment. However, we need not consider that point based
on our disposition of this mandamus petition.

6The mother asserts that the July 29, 2022, judgment was not final

because it left visitation to the discretion of the custodian. This court has
considered such visitations orders to be voidable, see D.B. v. Madison
Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 937 So. 2d 535, 541 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006), but
we have never held that such a visitation order negates the finality of a
judgment.
7
CL-2025-0653

to modify the July 29, 2022, judgment, but the juvenile court lacked

jurisdiction to modify that judgment through postjudgment practice in

case number JU-20-290.01. The juvenile court nevertheless conducted

hearings, labeled as "review hearings," and entered orders modifying the

July 29, 2022, judgment based on those hearings. Those orders, having

been entered without jurisdiction, are void. Id. at 386.

After the juvenile court had been acting without jurisdiction for

almost one year, the custodian filed a motion to dismiss case number JU-

20-290.01 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The juvenile court

denied the motion without explanation. Perhaps the juvenile court

determined that it could enter further orders in case number JU-20-

290.01 based on its having reserved jurisdiction to review the case if

requested by one of the parties. However, that reservation did not defeat

the finality of the July 29, 2022, judgment, see J.F. v. J.S., supra, and it

did not alter the procedure that must be followed to obtain modification

of that judgment. Regardless of the reservation, the juvenile court could

not modify the July 29, 2022, judgment in case number JU-20-290.01.

The juvenile court retained jurisdiction to modify the July 29, 2022,

8
CL-2025-0653

judgment, but not in the same case, which had been concluded.

Therefore, the juvenile court erred in denying the motion to dismiss.

Conclusion

The custodian had a clear legal right to an order granting her

motion to dismiss the case because the juvenile court had lost jurisdiction

over case number JU-20-290.01. That jurisdiction could not be revived

by the mother's filing of a motion to modify the judgment in the same

case number. The juvenile court had an imperative duty to dismiss the

case, yet it refused to do so despite a valid request from the custodian for

such relief. Lacking any other adequate remedy, the custodian is entitled

to a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile court to grant her motion to

dismiss. Furthermore, the custodian is also entitled to a writ of

mandamus directing the juvenile court to vacate its void orders entered

on or after August 19, 2024, in case number JU-20-290.01. Therefore, we

grant the petition and issue a writ directing the juvenile court to grant

the custodian's motion to dismiss and to vacate all orders entered in case

number JU-20-290.01 on or after August 19, 2024. Nothing in our

opinion should be construed as preventing the mother from filing a new

9
CL-2025-0653

petition to commence a new juvenile-court action to seek modification of

the July 29, 2022, judgment.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.

10