of the second hearing, the child’s guardian ad litem asked the court to clarify whether that proceeding was an action under the dependency statute. The trial court responded by saying, “I looked back through the file. There is nothing that does indicate that this is a dependency case.” In its June 7, 2001, judgment, the trial court did not make a finding that the child was dependent, and the language of that judgment indicates that the trial court determined that this action was not governed by § 12-15-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. After carefully reviewing the evidence in the record on appeal, we agree with the trial court that this case is a custody dispute and that it did not fall within the scope of the dependency statute. See S.T.S. v. C.T., 746 So.2d 1017, 1020 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). The mother correctly contends that because
holding that under the facts of that case the action primarily involved a custody dispute and therefore that the trial court erred in determining the case by applying the dependency statute holding that for all intents and purposes the instant case is the same action that was brought previously we therefore find the application of the doctrine of the law of the case to be appropriate holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute holding that reinstatement in an age discrimination case lies within the discretion of the trial court after careful consideration of the particular facts of the case holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue