15, 2011, the father filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the denial of his Rule 60(b)(2) motion. The juvenile court purported to deny that motion on the same date. Also on February 15, 2011, the father filed a second motion for relief from the judgment, this one pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P. In that second motion, the father stated that “[t]he grounds for relief are as they were presented in [the father’s] motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2).” The juvenile court denied the father’s second motion on the same date it was filed. On March 1, 2011, the father filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motions. This court has elected to treat the father’s petition as an appeal. See Evans v. Sharp, 617 So.2d 1039 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). We conclude, however, that this court cannot
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 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 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 recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review 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