Riley, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Respondent, A.S. (Mother), appeals the trial court’s Order terminating her parental rights to her minor daughter, S.S. (Child). [Footnote omitted.]
We affirm.
ISSUES
Mother raises two issues on appeal which we restate as the following:
(1) Whether the trial court’s denial of Mother’s motion to continue denied her due process; and
(2) Whether the trial court’s order certifying the statement of the evidence was erroneous.
….
Due to an equipment malfunction, most of the hearing was not recorded. Indiana Appellate Rule 31 governs situations when no transcript is available. The procedures outlined in Indiana Appellate Rule 31(A) call for a “party or a party’s attorney to prepare a verified statement of the evidence from the best available sources, which may include the party’s or the attorney’s recollections.” Once compiled, the statement of evidence is to be presented in a motion to the trial court for certification. Ind. Appellate Rule 31(A). Section B gives the opposing party, here, DCS, fifteen days to respond. Section C authorizes the trial court, after a hearing, if necessary, to certify a statement of evidence, which then becomes part of the clerk’s record. Childress v. State, 96 N.E.3d 632, 637 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). We also note that Indiana Appellate Rule 32 provides that if a disagreement arises as to whether the clerk’s record or transcript accurately discloses what occurred in the trial court, any party may move the trial court to resolve the disagreement, and the trial court “shall” issue an order that either confirms that the clerk’s record or transcript is accurate or corrects the clerk’s record or transcript to reflect what actually occurred.
As noted, on October 20, 2020, Mother filed a motion to remand the case to the trial court for the purpose of reconstructing the unavailable portion of the record. In the meantime, the judge who heard the case lost the election in early November 2020, but before the completion of his term at the end of December 2020, was certified as a senior judge on December 21, 2020. The successor judge was sworn into office in early January 2021. Only on February 15, 2021, almost 100 days after the date by which this court ordered her to complete her statement of the evidence, did Mother abide. The successor judge certified the statements of the evidence. Mother argues that the successor judge who certified the statements of the evidence, lacked authority and that she is entitled to a retrial of the fact-finding hearing.
….
The interpretation of a trial rule is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Morrison v. Vasquez, 124 N.E.3d 1217, 1219 (Ind. 2019). None of the provisions of Indiana Appellate Rule 31 supports Mother’s argument that a successor judge cannot certify the recreated record.
Secondly, had Mother abided by this court’s October 22, 2020, order to complete her statement of evidence within 15 days, the presiding judge who heard the case, would have been available. In addition, Mother’s failure to object on grounds that successor judge could not certify the reconstructed record, raised a question of invited error. A party may not take advantage of an error that she invites. Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014); see also Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (stating that invited error forbids a party from “taking advantage of an error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or misconduct”). As noted, Appellate Rule 31 does not support Mother’s position on appeal, and we also find that the very problem of which Mother complains—that the successor judge who certified the statement of the evidence was different from the judge who heard the evidence—is attributable to Mother. Therefore, we find no error here.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the denial of Mother’s motion to continue did not deny her due process and that no error occurred when the successor judge certified the statement of the evidence.
Affirmed.
Mathias, J. and Crone, J. concur