J.S. v. S.L., [Ms. 2160281 and 2160282, July 28, 2017] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). This decision by Presiding Judge Thompson (Pittman and Donaldson, JJ., concur, Thomas and Moore, JJ., concur in the result), considered the mother’s appeal from the juvenile court’s judgment that the child was dependent and should be placed in the custody of the child’s paternal grandmother. At a hearing in the matter, the mother agreed with the juvenile court that the McLendon standard applied to the issue before the juvenile court. However, on appeal, the mother argued that the McLendon standard did not apply. The court rejected the mother’s effort to change positions holding
“[t]he law is well settled that a party may not induce an error by the trial court and then attempt to win a reversal based on that error. ‘A party may not predicate an argument for reversal on invited error, that is, error into which he has led or lulled the trial court.’ Atkins v. Lee, 603 So. 2d 937, 945 (Ala. 1992)(quoting Dixie Highway Express, Inc. v. Southern Ry., 286 Ala. 646, 651, 244 So. 2d 591, 595 (1971)). ‘That doctrine [of invited error] provides that a party may not complain of error into which he has led the court.’ Ex parte King, 643 So. 2d 1364, 1366 (Ala. 1993). ‘A party cannot win a reversal on an error that party has invited the trial court to commit.’ Neal v. Neal, 856 So. 2d 766, 784 (Ala. 2002). See also Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Beasley, 466 So. 2d 935, 937 (Ala. 1985); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Humphres, 293 Ala. 413, 418, 304 So. 2d 573, 577 (1974).”
Ms. *11, quoting Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr. v. Hodgen, 884 So. 2d 801, 808 (Ala. 2003).
Having rejected the mother’s effort to argue that McLendon did not apply, the court found on ore tenus review that the mother failed to meet the McLendon standard and therefore affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court.