court granted her adoption petition. KG.S. attaches to her motion to dismiss a proposed order granting KG.S.’s adoption petition; that order is not signed by Druhan, and there is no indication that that order was actually entered. On November 10, 2015, Druhan also filed a motion to dismiss KR.’s mandamus petition. Druhan states that he denied KR.’s motion contesting KG.S.’s adoption petition on October 28, 2015. As a result, Druhan argues, KR.’s petition before this Court is moot. Druhan states that, “save for this Court’s stay,” he would have entered the proposed order submitted by KG.S. Standard of Review “A petition for the writ of mandamus is the usual method by which to seek review of a trial judge’s denial of a recusal motion. See Ex parte Crawford, 686 So.2d 196, 198 (Ala.1996) (<HOLDING>). ‘A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary
holding that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate mechanism for challenging a trial courts grant of leave to amend a complaint holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances 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 holding a claim not previously raised or ruled on by the circuit court was waived in an appeal from the denial of a writ of mandamus holding that a trial judges denial of a recusal motion can be challenged on appeal or in a petition for a writ of mandamus