Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. P7532
BUTZ, J.Petitioner and appellant Hilda M. (Hilda) appeals from an order in favor of objector and respondent Farrah T. (Farrah) denying Hilda’s motion for appointment as permanent guardian of Farrah’s two minor children, Ian M. and J.M. Hilda contends the trial court “erred and abused its discretion” by denying her petition. Because Hilda has failed to provide this court with a record sufficient to determine whether her claims have merit, we shall affirm the order.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Since there is no reporter’s transcript, our factual summary is drawn from the clerk’s transcript and the trial court’s written decision denying Hilda’s petition.
On November 29, 2005, Hilda (the minors’ great-grandmother) filed petitions for appointment as the temporary and permanent guardian for her granddaughter Farrah’s two older minor children, Ian M. and J.M. The minors had been informally placed with Hilda on September 5, 2005, by Nevada Department of Social Services workers, who removed them from Farrah’s home due to allegations of Farrah’s alcohol and drug abuse, and neglect. At that time, Farrah’s two younger children were placed in foster care.
On December 5, 2005, the trial court granted temporary guardianship of the two minors to Hilda. At an interim hearing concerning Hilda’s petition for permanent guardianship, the trial court ordered that an investigation be conducted by the conservatorship investigator.
The investigation report revealed that Farrah was completing a 60-day inpatient/outpatient drug program; that she had been sober for 120 days; was undergoing weekly therapy sessions at the Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Clinic; and she was on the waiting list for a larger three-bedroom home. In addition, during the investigation period, Farrah’s two younger children were returned from foster care to her and her husband. Farrah gave birth to another child in the summer of 2006.
In March 2006, the investigator recommended that the trial court grant Hilda’s petition for permanent guardianship of Ian M. and J.M., with visitation to Farrah.
Hearings on the petition for permanent guardianship of the two minors were held on May 1 and July 17, 2006. A final, contested hearing was held on November 9, 2006. Since there was no court reporter present, none of these proceedings was transcribed.
On November 15, 2006, the trial court filed its order denying Hilda’s petition for permanent guardianship. In its written decision, the court stated that the temporary guardianship had been granted because it was “necessary and convenient,” since the minors would otherwise have been placed in foster care. However, based on testimony from social workers, close friends, and the former foster parent for Farrah’s two younger children, the court found that Hilda’s guardianship was “no longer necessary.”
DISCUSSION
Hilda contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion by denying her petition to be appointed permanent guardian of the subject minors. She argues the order denying guardianship was contrary to the best interests of the children because their mother has a history of drug and alcohol abuse, is married to an individual with a similar history of drug and alcohol abuse, and that Ian M. told the investigator he did not feel safe living with his mother.
A decision whether to terminate or grant a guardianship is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court (Prob. Code, § 1601; Guardianship of L.V. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 481, 488) and we defer to the trial court’s findings to the extent that they are supported by substantial evidence. (L.V. at p. 487.) On appeal, we view the evidence “in [the] light most favorable to the trial court’s decision, resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of that court’s findings.” (Ibid.)
“[T]he reviewing court presumes the judgment of the trial court is correct and indulges all presumptions to support a judgment on matters as to which the record is silent.” (Baker v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1057, 1060, citing 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 268, pp. 276-277.) A party challenging the judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Estate of Davis (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 663, 670, fn. 13.) Where “the record on appeal consists of only a clerk’s transcript and exhibits and no error appears on the face of the record, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s rulings is not open to consideration by a reviewing court; in such a case, ‘any condition of facts consistent with the validity of the judgment will be presumed to have existed rather than one which would defeat it.’” (County of Los Angeles v. Surety Ins. Co. (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 16, 23, quoting Brockway v. Heilman (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 807, 810.)
The arguments Hilda raises in her briefs are, in essence, a claim that the evidence before the trial court did not support its order denying her petition for guardianship. However, in this case, the record on appeal includes only the pleadings in the clerk’s transcript. Without a record of the oral proceedings, we have no access to the testimony and other evidence upon which the trial court based its ruling. This renders meaningful appellate review of Hilda’s claims impossible (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9), and we have no alternative but summarily to affirm the judgment (Webman v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 592, 595; Weiss v. Brentwood Sav. & Loan Assn. (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 738, 746; Conner v. Rose (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 327, 328-329).
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order re: appointment of permanent guardian) is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P.J. RAYE, J.