State — must live by until the next hearing. Accordingly, against the backdrop of the emphasized language, this Court and the Court of Civil Appeals have recognized the unique nature of juvenile proceedings that make an appeal appropriate from any one of multiple judgments that may be entered during the life of a juvenile case. Citing the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion in C.L. v. D.H., 916 So.2d 622 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), we stated in Ex parte T.C., 96 So.3d 123, 130.(Ala.2012), that, “unlike other civil cases, dependency and termination-of-parental-rights proceedings may involve multiple ‘final’ ap-pealable orders before the juvenile case is closed. For example, temporary custody orders are treated as final, appeal-able orders. See, e.g., C.L. v. D.H., 916 So.2d 622 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (<HOLDING>).” Unlike normal civil cases in which a fixed
holding that order awarding attorney fees in amount to be determined at later date was not final appealable order holding order awarding father temporary partial custody prior to custody hearing was not final and appealable under rule 341 holding that order awarding maternal grandmother primary physical custody of a child in a dependency case was a final appealable order as opposed to a pendente lite order holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment