Ex parte V.G.

Lee Juvenile Court, JU-18-296.02, JU-18-297.02

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.

On November 5, 2018, the Lee Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") entered judgments finding two minor children ("the children"), whose parents are J.S. ("the mother") and J.L. ("the father"), dependent. The actions in which those judgments were entered had been assigned case number JU-18-296.01 and case number JU-18-297.01 in the juvenile court. At the time of the entry of the two November 5, 2018, dependency judgments, the father was deceased. In those judgments, the juvenile court awarded custody of the children to their paternal aunt, V.G. ("the aunt"), and awarded the mother certain rights of visitation with the children.

In June 2022, K.S. and A.S. ("the maternal grandparents") filed in the juvenile court, in actions assigned case number JU-18-296.02 and case number JU-18-297.02, petitions seeking an award of "grandparent

visitation" with the children. In their petitions, the maternal grandparents alleged that the mother was incarcerated and that, although they had visited with the children since the children had been placed in the aunt's custody, the aunt had placed unreasonable restrictions on their recent attempts to visit the children.

The aunt filed in each action a motion to dismiss the maternal grandparents' petitions, arguing that the maternal grandparents had asserted claims under the Grandparent Visitation Act ("the GVA"), § 303-4.2, Ala. Code 1975, which allows a grandparent to seek an award of visitation with his or her grandchild under certain circumstances. In her motions to dismiss, the aunt argued that the GVA did not authorize the maternal grandparents' claims under the facts of these cases. The juvenile court conducted a hearing on the motions to dismiss.

On August 30, 2022, the juvenile court entered orders denying the aunt's motions to dismiss but continuing the matters until the mother could be served. The aunt filed these petitions for a writ of mandamus.

"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. An appellate court will grant a petition for a 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 Flint Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 805, 808 (Ala 2000) (citing Ex parte Mercury Fin. Corp., 715 So.2d 196, 198 (Ala. 1997)). Review by mandamus is not appropriate where the petitioner has another adequate remedy, such as an appeal. Ex parte Jackson, 780 So.2d 681 (Ala. 2000); Ex parte Inverness Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 153 (Ala. 2000); Ex parte Walters, 646 So.2d 154 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."

Ex parte Amerigas, 855 So.2d 544, 546-47 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).

The aunt's petitions for a writ of mandamus challenge orders denying her motions to dismiss. Initially, we note that,

"[s]ubject to certain narrow exceptions not applicable here, we have held that, because an 'adequate remedy' exists by way of an appeal, the denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for a summary judgment is not reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Jackson, 780 So.2d 681, 684 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Ex parte Empire Fire &Marine Ins. Co., 720 So.2d 893, 894 (Ala. 1998), quoting in turn Ex parte Central Bank of the South, 675 So.2d 403 (Ala. 1996), for the general rule that '"'a writ of mandamus will not issue to review the merits of an order denying a motion for