Timeliness of Mandamus Petition


Ex parte Kaitlyn Allinder, [Ms. CL-2023-0903, Feb. 16, 2024] __ So. 3d (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). The court (Edwards, J.; Moore, P.J., and Hanson and Fridy, concur) denies the mother’s mandamus petition challenging the circuit court’s denial of her request for a forensic examination of the child pursuant to Rule 35(a), Ala. R. Civ. P. in a custody modification proceeding.

The court first notes that an order denying a Rule 35(a) motion is reviewable by mandamus. Ms. *8, citing Ex parte Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 729 So. 2d 294, 296 (Ala. 1999). The court denies the petition as untimely under Rule 21(a)(3), Ala. R. App. P., and notes the mother “provided no ‘statement of circumstances constituting good cause for the appellate court to consider the petition, notwithstanding that it was filed beyond the presumptively reasonable time.’ Id.” Ms. **8-9. The court also holds that a subsequent motion filed by the mother on the same grounds that were previously denied could not afford her “‘a second bite at the apple’ or ‘reset the clock’ for purposes of mandamus review.” Ms. *9. Ex parte A.L., 368 So. 3d 400, 404 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022) (some internal quotation marks omitted).

Related Documents

Share To: