Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; April 15, 2011; Alabama; State Appellate Court
K.S., the mother, appeals an order from the Lee Juvenile Court mandating her completion of a program at a voluntary residential women's shelter following a dependency-review hearing. The Lee County Department of Human Resources (DHR) became involved in March 2010 due to allegations of the mother's neglect of her child's medical needs. After a hearing on April 7, 2010, the court found the child dependent and awarded custody to DHR, imposing various requirements on the mother, including obtaining employment and attending parenting classes.
At the August 17, 2010 review hearing, DHR social worker Keitha Dirck testified that the mother had entered Mary’s Shelter for support in obtaining her GED and stability. DHR recommended that she stay at the shelter, undergo a mental health evaluation, participate in parenting classes, and continue working towards her GED. The mother confirmed her commitment to the shelter and her progress in various programs, including attending prenatal appointments as she was six months pregnant.
The juvenile court proposed an order requiring the mother to complete the shelter program, to which neither she nor her counsel objected. The court subsequently issued the order, confirming the child’s dependency status. On August 24, 2010, the mother filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming she could access similar services through family members and argued that the shelter requirement violated her due process rights. The juvenile court denied this motion, prompting the mother to appeal the decision. The court noted the importance of jurisdictional matters, indicating it could raise them sua sponte.
An appeal can only be made from a final judgment, defined as a conclusive decision by a competent court that resolves all contested matters between the parties. A judgment is considered final if it clearly determines the rights of the parties involved. Previous rulings establish that a juvenile court's formal determination of a child's dependency, along with a custody award—even if labeled temporary—constitutes an appealable final judgment. In this case, the juvenile court ruled that the child remained dependent, maintaining custody with the Department of Human Resources (DHR). Neither the mother nor DHR sought to change this decision, and the mother did not contest the child's dependency status. Consequently, the juvenile court's order was deemed non-final and not appealable. However, the court opted to treat the mother's appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary remedy granted under specific conditions: the petitioner must have a clear legal right to relief, the respondent must have an imperative duty that has been refused, there must be no other adequate remedy, and jurisdiction must be properly invoked. The mother claimed her due-process rights were violated by being ordered to stay and complete a program at a shelter, equating it to civil commitment. However, since the mother intended to stay and DHR recommended it, the court’s order reflected her intentions and did not constitute an error. Additionally, as she did not object to the order during the hearing, she could not claim reversal based on "invited error," which refers to situations where a party leads the court into making an error.
The doctrine of invited error holds that a party cannot claim error that they have caused the court to commit. In the case of Atkins v. Lee, the mother’s failure to object to the juvenile court's requirement during her testimony led to her inability to contest it later. Her argument for reconsideration was based on new factual allegations regarding services available through family members, which were not presented at the initial hearing. Such new evidence is not grounds for postjudgment relief. Consequently, the mother did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, leading to the denial of her petition for a writ of mandamus. The decision was supported by judges Thompson, Pittman, and Bryan, with Judge Moore dissenting.
