G.D. and S.D. v. S.R.S. and R.H.S. (Appeal from Tallapoosa Juvenile Court: JU-16-132.02)., CL-2024-0767

G.D. and S.D. (biological parents) had their parental rights to child G.A.D. terminated by the Tallapoosa Juvenile Court in 2019, after the child's maternal grandparents had custody since 2016 and sought termination due to abandonment and lack of support.
Biological parents participated in the 2019 termination hearing and were represented by appointed counsel; their parental rights were terminated, and appeals were filed but later dismissed as premature due to lack of finality.
The court amended its termination order in 2020 to grant permanent custody to the maternal grandparents, making the judgment final, but no appeals were taken from that order.
In 2024, the biological parents sought relief under Rule 60(b)(4), arguing the termination order was void because they allegedly lacked legal representation post-trial and on appeal, filing both a direct motion and an independent action.
In the meantime, the maternal grandparents finalized their adoption of the child in 2020.
The juvenile court denied both Rule 60(b) motions; the biological parents appealed, disputing the adoption and raising due process arguments.

Issue	Parents' Argument	Grandparents' Argument	Held
Whether the termination judgment was void for lack of counsel on appeal	Biological parents claim judgment is void because they were without counsel during the appeals process, violating due process	Grandparents argue parents had counsel at trial and that their due process rights were satisfied; further, the adoption renders the issue moot	Appeal is moot due to completed adoption; court cannot grant relief
Effect of adoption on appeal of termination order	Adoption does not moot the appeal because due process violation in termination proceeding negates adoption	Adoption is final, no evidence of fraud or kidnapping, and both decree and order reference the correct child	Appeal is moot because adoption is final and unchallenged for over a year
Right to contest adoption based on due process violations in termination	Due process challenge to termination should provide defense against adoption	No longer a cognizable claim; parental rights already terminated and adoption completed	Court finds no cognizable claim due to final/adopted status
Applicability of collateral attack on adoption decree	Believe they can collaterally attack adoption due to alleged invalidity of termination	Statute only allows attack based on fraud or kidnapping within a year; none proven here	Adoption can't be attacked; decree stands

South Alabama Gas District v. Knight, 138 So. 3d 971 (Ala. 2013) (mootness is a jurisdictional issue and courts may dismiss appeals when events render them moot)
Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972 (Ala. 2007) (actual controversy must exist at all stages of appellate review)
King v. Campbell, 988 So. 2d 969 (Ala. 2007) (courts only decide controversies where a judgment can be carried into effect)
City of Mobile v. Matthews, 220 So. 3d 1061 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (court can take judicial notice of its own records)
S.N.W. v. M.D.F.H., 127 So. 3d 1225 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (juvenile courts may terminate rights to facilitate adoptions)