Ex parte Nancy Buckner, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: The matter of D.R.S., a minor child)

Share |
Download as PDF
Loading PDF...
REL: 9/24/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090692 Ex p a r t e Nancy B u c k n e r , C o m m i s s i o n e r o f t h e Alabama Department o f Human R e s o u r c e s , e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : The m a t t e r o f D.R.S., a m i n o r child) (Montgomery J u v e n i l e C o u r t , JU-93-102.08, CV-09-204, and CV09-900341) PER CURIAM. Nancy Buckner, Human County Resources; Commissioner o f the Alabama Department o f Terry Department of Benton, Human Director o f t h e Montgomery Resources; John Houston, 2090692 Commissioner of t h e Alabama D o n a l d E. W i l l i a m s o n , of t h e Alabama Executive M.D., Department Director of State Health Officer the Joseph Morton, and Glass, Director O f f i c e ( c o l l e c t i v e l y "the for a writ presiding the mandate Alabama State State agents"), 2008) petition court's the juvenile-court judge d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e ("D.R.S. I " ) , a n d t o r e c u s e i n part and deny t h e p e t i t i o n i n t h e Montgomery Juvenile a c t i o n " ) , which i n v o l v e s the care Child court t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s below t o comply of this Youth Education; Multi-Needs petition Court with Montgomery 10 S o . 3 d 31 ( A l a . herself. We g r a n t t h e o f case no. JU-93- ("the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t o f D.R.S., up t o t h e t i m e o f that d e c i s i o n : "D.R.S. i s d e a f a n d m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d . She a l s o s u f f e r s from d i a b e t e s , mental i l l n e s s , and a l o p e c i a . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t has e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r D.R.S. f o r a n u m b e r o f y e a r s . D u r i n g some o f t h o s e y e a r s , D.R.S. was i n t h e l e g a l c u s t o d y o f v a r i o u s r e l a t i v e s . The m o s t r e c e n t p r o c e e d i n g s i n v o l v i n g D.R.S. b e g a n o n May 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , when t h e [ M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human 2 Civ. i n part. I n D.R.S. I , we s u m m a r i z e d t h e h i s t o r y 102 of of Wood, this C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , App. and D i r e c t o r Department o f t h e Alabama Health; J . Walter Superintendent o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g over of Mental of Public Health; Services; Donna Department 2090692 Resources ('the C o u n t y DHR')] petitioned the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o f i n d t h a t D.R.S., who was t h e n i n the legal custody of her paternal aunt, was dependent and t o award custody o f D.R.S. t o t h e C o u n t y DHR. U p o n t h e f i l i n g o f t h e C o u n t y DHR's p e t i t i o n , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a p p o i n t e d an a t t o r n e y t o s e r v e a s D.R.S.'s g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m . On May 3 0 , 2007, f o l l o w i n g an e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t D.R.S. was d e p e n d e n t a n d g r a n t e d t h e C o u n t y DHR l e g a l c u s t o d y o f D.R.S. "The C o u n t y DHR made a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r D.R.S. t o r e s i d e t e m p o r a r i l y a t t h e [ N a t i o n a l Deaf Academy ('the NDA')] w h i l e i t s o u g h t j o i n t - a g e n c y funding f r o m t h e ' S t a t e M u l t i p l e N e e d s Team' f o r a l o n g - t e r m p l a c e m e n t f o r D.R.S. On J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e C o u n t y DHR t o g i v e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 30 d a y s ' w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f a n y p r o p o s e d c h a n g e i n D.R.S.'s p l a c e m e n t . "On J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e [ A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ( ' t h e S t a t e D H R ' ) ] , a c t i n g o n b e h a l f of the County DHR (hereinafter sometimes c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o a s 'DHR'), n o t i f i e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n w r i t i n g o f t h e C o u n t y DHR's i n t e n t to change D.R.S.'s p l a c e m e n t from t h e NDA t o Baypointe Children's Residential Services ('Baypointe') i n Mobile, A l a b a m a , a n d moved t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o amend i t s J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , o r d e r t o allow t h e change i n placement immediately. As grounds f o r seeking the immediate change in p l a c e m e n t , DHR a l l e g e d t h a t B a y p o i n t e c o u l d p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s t h a t w e r e e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e NDA; t h a t t h e S t a t e M u l t i p l e N e e d s Team h a d a p p r o v e d j o i n t - a g e n c y funding for residential placement o f D.R.S. a t B a y p o i n t e a t a c o s t n o t t o e x c e e d $435 p e r day from the date o f admission t h r o u g h September 30, 2007; and t h a t B a y p o i n t e then had a space a v a i l a b l e f o r D.R.S. b u t t h a t i t m i g h t n o t h a v e s p a c e a v a i l a b l e a t a l a t e r d a t e . The m o t i o n was a c c o m p a n i e d b y a b r i e f asserting that the j u v e n i l e court lacked authority t o c o n d i t i o n p l a c e m e n t o f D.R.S. o n t h e j u v e n i l e 3 2090692 court's prior approval; that the constitutional doctrine of separation o f powers p r o h i b i t e d t h e juvenile court from preventing the placement of D.R.S. a t B a y p o i n t e ; t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l a c k e d the a u t h o r i t y t o c o n t r o l t h e e x p e n d i t u r e of State f u n d s b y d i r e c t i n g t h a t S t a t e a g e n c i e s p l a c e D.R.S. at a p a r t i c u l a r f a c i l i t y ; that the j u v e n i l e court lacked a u t h o r i t y to require State agencies t o incur the c o s t o f p r o v i d i n g care f o r a c h i l d a t a p r i v a t e f a c i l i t y ; and t h a t t h e c o u n t i e s o f t h e S t a t e a r e statutorily responsible f o r the care of indigent c h i l d r e n d i r e c t e d by a j u v e n i l e c o u r t . "An e n t r y made b y t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n summary on J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , i n d i c a t e s t h a t on t h a t d a t e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g o n DHR's m o t i o n t o amend t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , o r d e r a n d made a f i n d i n g t h a t i t was n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f D.R.S. t o b e m o v e d f r o m t h e NDA. "On J u l y 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m m o v e d the j u v e n i l e court to find the County DHR i n contempt. As g r o u n d s , t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m a l l e g e d , among o t h e r things, (1) t h a t t h e C o u n t y DHR h a d m o v e d D.R.S. t o B a y p o i n t e on J u l y 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 ; (2) that, contrary t o DHR's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s to the j u v e n i l e court, Baypointe d i d not provide services t h a t were e q u i v a l e n t t o t h o s e p r o v i d e d b y t h e NDA; and (3) t h a t B a y p o i n t e was a n u n s u i t a b l e p l a c e m e n t f o r D.R.S. T h e C o u n t y DHR d e n i e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n the g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s m o t i o n . " F o l l o w i n g an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e j u v e n i l e court entered t h e N o v e m b e r 13 o r d e r . That order f o u n d t h a t D.R.S. h a d t h r i v e d w h i l e s h e was a t t h e NDA a n d t h a t s h e h a d b e e n m i s t r e a t e d w h i l e s h e was a t B a y p o i n t e . B a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s , t h e j u v e n i l e court i n i t s November 13 o r d e r concluded, in pertinent part: "'1. That the Court s p e c i f i c a l l y 4 finds 2090692 that t h e Alabama Department of Human R e s o u r c e s h a s n o t made r e a s o n a b l e efforts to assure the health, safety and e d u c a t i o n a l and m e d i c a l needs o f [D.R.S.] b y p l a c i n g h e r a t B a y p o i n t e . D e s p i t e DHR's a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h i s C o u r t c a n n o t t e l l DHR where t o p l a c e a c h i l d , t h e C o u r t b e l i e v e s t h a t when DHR f a i l s o r r e f u s e s t o p r o t e c t a child from harm o r m i s t r e a t m e n t , t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t must s t e p i n t o s t o p t h e continued medical maltreatment, o v e r - m e d i c a t i o n and p e r s o n a l v i o l a t i o n s o f [D.R.S.] "'2. That [D.R.S.] shall be immediately transported to Mt. Dora, F l o r i d a t o t h e N a t i o n a l Deaf Academy ( o r other f a c i l i t y equivalent to the National Deaf Academy) where she s h a l l r e m a i n a t t h e expense o f t h e S t a t e of Alabama u n t i l such time as she i s a b l e t o f u n c t i o n and communicate i n d e p e n d e n t l y . I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t p r e s e n t l y A l a b a m a h a s no s u c h facility within i t s borders. "'7. That t h e C o u r t o r d e r s t h a t M r s . Liz H i l l be r e i n s t a t e d as t h e r a p i s t f o r [D.R.S.] by [ t h e Department], so as t o a l l o w h e r t o continue h e r work w i t h t h i s multi-needs child. Ms. H i l l has c l e a r l y made p r o g r e s s a n d h a s a c h i e v e d a l e v e l o f t r u s t w h i c h c a n n o t be d u p l i c a t e d q u i c k l y . I t c a n n o t be i n t h i s c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t to h a v e Ms. H i l l summarily removed from i n t e r a c t i o n with [D.R.S.]' "(Emphasis writ added.) " DHR t h e n p e t i t i o n e d o f mandamus." 5 this court to issue a 2090692 10 So. 3d a t 33-35. In D.R.S. responsible I, we f o rpaying held that f o r D.R.S.'s Montgomery County care: "The p e t i t i o n e r s f i r s t argue t h a t they have a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s N o v e m b e r 13 o r d e r i n s o f a r as t h a t o r d e r r e q u i r e d t h e S t a t e o f Alabama t o p a y t h e e x p e n s e s o f D.R.S. a t t h e NDA. T h e p e t i t i o n e r s a s s e r t t h a t § 12-15-10, Ala.Code 1975, and the separation-of-powers provisions of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n mandate t h a t Montgomery County rather than the State o f Alabama i s t h e e n t i t y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c o s t o f D.R.S.'s c a r e . We a g r e e . "Section 12-15-10, a part o f t h e Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e Act, which deals with proceedings in the j u v e n i l e court, provides, i n pertinent p a r t : "'All expenses necessary or appropriate to the c a r r y i n g out of the purposes and i n t e n t o f t h i s chapter and a l l expenses of maintenance and care of c h i l d r e n t h a t may b e i n c u r r e d b y o r d e r o f the court i n c a r r y i n g out t h e p r o v i s i o n s and i n t e n t o f t h i s c h a p t e r , except costs p a i d by p a r e n t s , guardians, or trustees, c o u r t c o s t s as p r o v i d e d by l a w and a t t o r n e y f e e s s h a l l be v a l i d c h a r g e s a n d p r e f e r r e d c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e c o u n t y a n d s h a l l be p a i d b y t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r e r when i t e m i z e d a n d sworn t o by t h e c r e d i t o r o r o t h e r p e r s o n s knowing t h e f a c t s i n t h e case and approved by t h e c o u r t . ' "(Emphasis added.) " I n Ex p a r t e D e p a r t m e n t o f M e n t a l H e a l t h , 511 So. 2 d 181 ( A l a . 1987 ) , t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t an o r d e r o f t h e H o u s t o n J u v e n i l e C o u r t 6 was 2090692 d i r e c t i n g the Department t o p l a c e a c h i l d a t C h a r t e r Woods Hospital, a private facility, for a psychiatric evaluation t o be p a i d f o r by t h e Department violated § 12-15-10 and the separation-of-powers provisions of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n . The c o u r t stated: "'[In § 12-15-10], the Legislature expressly designates the county as t h e entity responsible f o r maintenance and care. Therefore, according to our s t a t u t o r y scheme, t h e c o u n t y , n o t t h e S t a t e or a department t h e r e o f , i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any m o n i e s d u e C h a r t e r Woods H o s p i t a l . "'The Court o f C i v i l Appeals' judgment o r d e r i n g [ t h e Department] t o pay f o r the c h i l d ' s care and t r e a t m e n t n o t o n l y runs a f o u l o f § 12-15-10, b u t a l s o v i o l a t e s §§ 42 a n d 43 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a o f 1901, w h i c h s e c t i o n s d e a l w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e of s e p a r a t i o n o f powers. "'Although the Legislature granted a u t h o r i t y t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t o commit c h i l d r e n to the custody of [the Department] and authority to a v a i l themselves of the facilities and personnel of [the Department], the L e g i s l a t u r e did not confer upon t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o commit a c h i l d to the custody of [ t h e D e p a r t m e n t ] and then o r d e r t h a t t h e c h i l d be placed in a private psychiatric facility. See Code of Alabama 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 9 0 . Had t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o grant authority to juvenile courts to commit a c h i l d to the custody of [ t h e D e p a r t m e n t ] and then o r d e r t h a t t h e c h i l d be p l a c e d i n a p r i v a t e p s y c h i a t r i c f a c i l i t y at the expense o f [ t h e Department], i t would have been a s i m p l e m a t t e r f o r t h e Legislature to so provide. The 7 2090692 Legislature's power to determine the a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o reach s t a t e agency cannot be u s u r p e d b y e i t h e r o f t h e o t h e r b r a n c h e s of government. [ T h e D e p a r t m e n t ] i s mandated by the Legislature to a c t , through i t s commissioner, " i n any prudent way to p r o v i d e m e n t a l h e a l t h s e r v i c e s ... f o r t h e p e o p l e o f A l a b a m a . " Code o f A l a b a m a 1 9 7 5 , § 2 2 - 5 0 - 1 , e t s e q . [The D e p a r t m e n t ] i s t h e r e f o r e charged by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e t o a c c e p t m i n o r s a l l e g e d t o be m e n t a l l y i l l and t r e a t t h e m b y means o f i t s v a r i o u s programs and f a c i l i t i e s . Nowhere i n any o f t h e s e s t a t u t e s does t h e L e g i s l a t u r e s t a t e t h a t anyone o t h e r than [ t h e Department] i s authorized to care f o r and t r e a t these children. "'Furthermore, i n I n r e M c C a i n , 348 So. 2 d 78 0 ( A l a . 1 977 ) , t h i s C o u r t was presented with a situation substantially s i m i l a r t o t h e one s u b j u d i c e . T h e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d made M c C a i n a w a r d o f t h e c o u r t , p l a c e d h i m i n an o u t - o f - s t a t e m e n t a l health center, and required [the Department] t o pay f o r McCain's c a r e and treatment. I n s t r i k i n g down t h e c o u r t ' s order, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "'"To allow this provision of Judge Davis's order to stand would allow the unrecoverable e x p e n d i t u r e o f S t a t e funds from an a p p r o p r i a t i o n n o t i n t e n d e d f o r c h i l d care and from which Judge D a v i s h a s no a u t h o r i t y t o d i r e c t expenditure of funds for child care." "'348 S o . 2 d a t 7 8 2 . The r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d t h i s Court's d e c i s i o n i n McCain i s e q u a l l y s o u n d i n t h i s c a s e . We f i n d no m e r i t i n t h e 8 2090692 argument that the case before us is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from McCain because of the f a c t t h a t i n M c C a i n , t h e C o u r t l a b e l e d as " c o u r t c o s t s " t h e a m o u n t t o be p a i d b y [ t h e Department]. Whatever t h e i r designation, c o s t s f o r c a r e and treatment of a minor p l a c e d i n a p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n c a n n o t be charged to [the Department]. Therefore, t h a t p o r t i o n of the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s ' opinion that held [the Department] r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c h i l d ' s expenses w h i l e he was in Charter Woods Hospital is e r r o n e o u s and i t i s h e r e b y r e v e r s e d . ' "511 So. 2d a t 1 8 3 - 8 4 . See a l s o I n r e N.D.M., 837 So. 2d 316 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e c o u n t y m u s t p a y t h e e x p e n s e s o f an i n d i g e n t m i n o r committed to the c u s t o d y of the D e p a r t m e n t ) ; In re D.M., 738 So. 2d a t 901 ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) (stating t h a t ' [ o ] u r supreme c o u r t has h e l d t h a t n e i t h e r § 12-15-71(c)(4) nor § 12-15-70 authorizes the j u v e n i l e c o u r t to r e q u i r e a department of the s t a t e , as o p p o s e d t o i t s c o u n t i e s , t o p a y f o r m e n t a l h e a l t h t r e a t m e n t o f t h e c h i l d when t h e p a r e n t s or other persons l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d to care f o r the child c a n n o t ' ) ; Alabama Dep't of M e n t a l H e a l t h & M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n v . S t a t e , 718 So. 2d 74, 76 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1998) ( s t a t i n g t h a t ' A l a . C o d e 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 , r e q u i r e s the a p p r o p r i a t e county to bear the expense f o r c a r e and t r e a t m e n t o f i n d i g e n t j u v e n i l e s ' ) ; Ex p a r t e S t a t e D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 716 So. 2d 7 1 7 , 718 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( s t a t i n g t h a t ' i f the c h i l d ' s parents, guardians, or t r u s t e e s are unable to pay t h e m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s , t h e c o u n t y i s o b l i g a t e d t o do s o ' ) ; Ex p a r t e S t a t e D e p ' t o f M e n t a l H e a l t h & M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n , 555 So. 2d 1 1 3 2 , 1133 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) (stating that ' i f the child's parents or others l e g a l l y o b l i g a t e d are f i n a n c i a l l y unable to pay such expenses, the county is statutorily o b l i g a t e d t o do s o ' ) ; a n d I n r e T . L . H . , 607 So. 2d 295 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) (same). 9 2090692 "The p e t i t i o n e r s h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i r r i g h t t o a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s N o v e m b e r 13 o r d e r i n s o f a r a s t h a t o r d e r r e q u i r e d t h e S t a t e o f Alabama t o pay t h e expense o f p l a c i n g D.R.S. a t t h e NDA." 10 So. 3d a t 35-37. After this court issued D.R.S. I , t h e M o n t g o m e r y i t s certificate C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human ("the County DHR"), on M a r c h court judge f o r an order Commission Academy 12-15-108, Attached 18, 2009, directing t o pay the b i l l s ( " t h e NDA") 1975, and 2008. Those b i l l s On sued February the State Court totaled 10, 2009, agents ("the c i r c u i t other circuit residents were Deaf to § i n D.R.S. I. submitted by bills 1, 2 0 0 7 , t h r o u g h December 3 1 , $224,055. t h e Montgomery a n d t h e NDA court"), that action CV-09-204. 10 County Commission i n t h e Montgomery seeking o f Montgomery court docketed County pursuant our holding who was o b l i g a t e d t o p a y f o r t h e c a r e of the juvenile- by t h e N a t i o n a l o f D.R.S. t o t h e C o u n t y DHR's m o t i o n t h e NDA f o r t h e p e r i o d D e c e m b e r moved Resources t h e Montgomery submitted f o r i t s care A l a . Code o f judgment i n a judgment Circuit determining o f D.R.S. a n d t h e c a r e County by t h e NDA. ("the c o u n t y ' s The a c t i o n " ) as 2090692 On March Montgomery 19, 2009, County i n the c i r c u i t mandamus c o m p e l l i n g Montgomery circuit County court t h e NDA the State sued court, agents t o p a y t h e NDA docketed that action the State agents seeking and a writ of or, i n the alternative, f o r i t s care o f D.R.S. ( " t h e NDA's a c t i o n " ) The a s CV- 09-900341. Motions action with to consolidate the juvenile-court circuit-court judges p r e s i d i n g NDA's a c t i o n d e f e r r e d to those stating motions, that shall confusion, were a n d t h e NDA's filed. After the i n the county's action the juvenile-court action into the Juvenile be h e a r d action action to the juvenile-court the county's "consolidated to avoid the county's and t h e judge with judge entered a n d t h e NDA's respect an order action were C o u r t c a s e " ; " [ h ] o w e v e r , so as t h e [ c o u n t y ' s a c t i o n a n d t h e NDA's separately from the on-going action] juvenile[-court action]." The against State agents moved them by Montgomery to dismiss County the claims a n d t h e NDA t h a t M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y was t h e p r o p e r p a r t y its care those o f D.R.S.; motions. however, 11 judge on t h e g r o u n d t o p a y t h e NDA f o r the juvenile-court The j u v e n i l e - c o u r t asserted also judge denied appointed the 2090692 attorney she coordinator the juvenile-court was judge to recuse agents When no r u l i n g herself represent whom the D.R.S. court f o r leave court granted to comply motion seeking petitioned with this f o r i t s care this court's judge consolidated i n this had County o f D.R.S. court, the appointed actions moved t o withdraw from t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , that of the t h a t Montgomery was p e n d i n g juvenile-court to this and t h i s motion. The supreme c o u r t stated the standard a w r i t o f mandamus i n E x p a r t e 499 f o r recusal agents t o p a y t h e NDA i n these actions. d i r e c t i n g the juvenile-court and t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n attorney campaign-finance on t h e i r the State o f mandamus entity her moved i n D.R.S. I i n s o f a r a s we h e l d the proper While as D.R.S. i n t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d forthcoming, for a writ was State judge. court mandate designated to represent Thereafter, recusal had f o r the issuance Integon Corp., 672 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , (Ala. 1995): "Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o b e i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) a n imperative d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court." 12 of 2090692 In Ex p a r t e Alabama Power Company, (Ala. 1983), t h e supreme c o u r t , q u o t i n g Error § 991 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 4 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 5 1 , 155 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and stated: " ' I t i s the duty of the t r i a l court, on remand, t o comply s t r i c t l y with the mandate o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t r u e i n t e n t and meaning, as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n b y t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t . No j u d g m e n t o t h e r t h a n t h a t d i r e c t e d o r p e r m i t t e d b y t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t may b e entered The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n is final as t o a l l m a t t e r s b e f o r e i t , becomes t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e , a n d must be e x e c u t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e mandate, w i t h o u t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l o r t a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l evidence '" In D.R.S. I , we made i tclear that, under Alabama law, Montgomery County i s t h e e n t i t y r e s p o n s i b l e NDA's that to care o f D.R.S. Compliance with the j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge grant dismiss the claims asserted C o u n t y a n d t h e NDA. A c c o r d i n g l y , have established those motions a clear to dismiss, do properly invoked of the State right another jurisdiction them by Montgomery duty agents granting on t h e p a r t of those motions and a r e f u s a l adequate of this 13 required agents' motions t o an o r d e r an i m p e r a t i v e to mandate f o r the we h o l d t h a t t h e S t a t e j u v e n i l e - c o u r t judge t o grant so, the lack that against legal the f o r paying court. remedy, and t h e Accordingly, we 2090692 grant the State agents' p e t i t i o n insofar mandamus directing the juvenile-court as i t s e e k s a w r i t judge to dismiss of the c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t t h e m b y M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y a n d t h e NDA. Because the motions seeking by Montgomery moot insofar juvenile-court State agents dismissal County as a writ to recuse P E T I T I O N GRANTED I N PART AND All the judges entitled of the claims a n d t h e NDA i t seeks judge are concur. 14 to have their asserted against granted, their o f mandamus them petition is compelling the herself. DENIED I N PART; WRIT ISSUED.