his Rule 60(b) motion and his appeal from the denial of that motion moot. Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the father’s appeal in case no. 2100496. Conclusion In case nos. 2091106 and 2091130, we reverse the judgment of the juvenile court and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In case no. 2100496, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 2091106 — REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2091130 — REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2100496 — APPEAL DISMISSED. THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur. BRYAN, J., concurs in the result, without writing. 1 . In case no. 2100496, the father filed a petition for a writ of mandamus; however, this court elected to treat that petition as an appeal. See Evans v. Sharp, 617 So.2d 1039 (Aia.Civ.App. 1993) (<HOLDING>). 2 . "Except as otherwise provided by the
holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review holding that appellate courts can review the denial of a rule 60b motion by appeal even if the appellant mistakenly files a petition for a writ of mandamus recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review holding that a trial judges denial of a recusal motion can be challenged on appeal or in a petition for a writ of mandamus holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself