efforts to reunite those children with the father and R.F., and that their dependency cases would remain open and subject to review in three months. The December 17, 2008, judgment, which was expressly intended to incorporate the agreement of the parties, clearly does not indicate in any manner that the award of custody to L.M.D. and J.E.D. was intended only for temporary protective purposes while the father underwent rehabilitation or DHR used reasonable efforts to reunite the child with the father. On its face, the judgment terminates the dependency action by awarding unconditional legal and physical custody of the child to L.M.D. and J.E.D., closing the case, and relieving DHR of any further supervision over the matter. See GM. v. T.W., 75 So.3d 1181, 1184 (Ala.Civ.App. 2011) (<HOLDING>). If the father believed that the December 17,
holding that probation department employees are not county employees recognizing that the plaintiff has the right to file suit in any permissible county holding that attorneyclient privilege could apply to communications of legal advice between nonlawyer members of management and human resources department if the communication was made in confidence for the primary purpose of obtaining legal advice holding that judgment that indicated file closed and that relieved county department of human resources of supervision terminated dependency proceeding holding that county and district attorneys are officers within the judicial department