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)

Annotate this Case

Download 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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.