apparently concluded that the delay was excusable although it made no findings to that effect. However, there was no objection to the late filing,— either by the guardian ad litem or by the Department — and therefore, the question of whether the delay was a result of excusable neglect has not been preserved for review and we need not address it. As a result, any objection to the district court’s decision to excuse the late filing of the petition has been waived. The Department argues that the timeliness of the petition is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction and, thus, cannot be waived. However, as we have held, section 19-1-108(5) neither grants nor denies the district court the subject matter jurisdiction over proceedings under the Children’s Code. See People in Interes Ala.2002) (<HOLDING>). In summary, we hold that the district court
holding that the concept of excusable neglect could not be invoked to gloss over a failure to take minimum safeguards for determining that action is being taken holding that failure to accurately calculate the thirtyday appeal period is not excusable neglect holding that the states failure to object to a late petition for appeal of a termination order granted by the trial court on the basis of excusable neglect constituted a waiver of the states right to contest excusable neglect on appeal to the court of appeals holding that to obtain relief under rule 60b1 on grounds of excusable neglect the movant must also demonstrate prima facie evidence of a meritorious defense holding plaintiff bears the burden of showing that delay was due to oversight inadvertence or excusable neglect