When a reporter's record is necessary for appellate review of an issue and we do not have a reporter's record, we presume the missing record supports the trial court's judgment. See B.F. v. A.F., No. 02-16-00133-CV, 2017 WL 2375767, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)
We recognize that Appellant's effort to find grounds for reversal, if any exist, is hampered by the lack of a reporter's record. See, e.g., B.F. v. A.F., No. 02-16-00133-CV, 2017 WL 2375767, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). But because the Family Code specifically authorizes parties to agree to waiving a record, the failure to record the proceedings is not itself a basis for reversal.
However, in B.F. v. A.F., this court distinguished Tenery, explaining that the Supreme Court applied the presumed-harm analysis of Rule 296 in Tenery because the appellant in that case timely requested findings under that rule. B.F. v. A.F., No. 02-16-00133-CV, 2017 WL 2375767, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). In B.F., the appellant did not request findings under Rule 296 or under Section 154.130; this court therefore held that Rule 296's presumed-harm analysis was inapplicable and applied Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1(a) to determine any error harmless.
Outside of that context, however, "settled law recognizes the impossibility of establishing on appeal that the evidence is either legally or factually insufficient without a complete reporter's record," and "we are entitled to presume that any missing reporter's record supports the trial court's judgment." Mbonu, 2008 WL 2186504, at *4 (citations omitted); see also B.F. v. A.F., No. 02-16-00133-CV, 2017 WL 2375767, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that it is the appellant's burden to provide a record demonstrating an abuse of discretion and, because no record had been provided, presuming that the evidence supported the trial court's child support order). "If an appellant exercises due diligence and through no fault of his own is unable to obtain a proper record of the evidence introduced, this may require a new trial where his right to have the case reviewed on appeal can be preserved in no other way."