This appeal1 is a companion case to A.C. v. State, 888 So.2d 518 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004). In this case, as in A.C., a juvenile who had never previously been adjudicated to be a child in need of supervision (“CHINS”) was found to be a CHINS by the Family Court of Jefferson County (sitting as the Jefferson Juvenile Court) and, among other things, was ordered to complete the “High Intensity Training” program (“H.I.T. program”) of the Alabama Department of Youth Services, a residential boot camp for juveniles. The same juvenile-court judge who heard and decided AC. also heard and decided this case, and that judge certified in this case, pursuant to Rule 28(A)(1)(b), Ala. R. Juv. P., the same questions of law as were certified in AC.

In reversing the juvenile court’s judgment in AC., this court concluded (a) that the juvenile appellant had standing to challenge the portion of the judgment under review that directed her to complete the H.I.T. program and (b) that § 12-15-71(e), Ala.Code 1975, prohibited the placement of a juvenile adjudicated to be a CHINS in a facility established for delinquent children if that juvenile had never previously been found in need of supervision. 888 So.2d at 521. On the authority of AC., we reverse the juvenile court’s judgment in this case and we remand the cause for the entry of a judgment consistent with the principles expressed in AC.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

dissenting.

I believe that this case should be transferred to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See my dissent in S.H. v. State, 868 So.2d 1110 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003); see also State v. K.C.L., 823 So.2d 1287 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) (appeal in a proceeding on a truancy/CHINS petition). Accordingly, I must dissent.