Ex parte H.W. and K.W., [Ms. CL-2024-0382, Aug. 2, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). The court (Edwards, Hanson, and Lewis, JJ., concur; Moore, P.J., concurs in the result) denies the parents’ mandamus petition challenging the Lee Circuit Court’s “order finding that they had impliedly consented to the adoption of their Child N.R.S.W.”
The court cites settled law that “‘[a] writ of mandamus will issue only in situations where other relief is unavailable or is inadequate, and it cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.’ Ex parte Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 720 So. 2d 893, 894 (Ala. 1998).” Ms. *16.
The court concludes the parents have an adequate remedy by way of appeal because “[t]his court has consistently reviewed orders that determined that a parent had impliedly consented to adoption as part of our review of an appeal of a final judgment of adoption.” Ibid.