Opinion
1 CA-CV 11-0463
04-17-2012
In re the Matter of: COURTNEY L. STIPPELL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. JAMES M. GAINER, and TAMMIE SUE GAINER, husband and wife; BOBBIE TAYLOR AND DELOS (DEL) TAYLOR, Intervenors/Appellees.
Courtney L. Stippell Plaintiff/Appellant Pro Se Burns, Nickerson, & Taylor, PLC by Neal C. Taylor Attorneys for Intervenors/Appellees
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication - Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. FC2007-090460
The Honorable David M. Talamante, Judge
AFFIRMED
Courtney L. Stippell
Plaintiff/Appellant Pro Se
Queen Creek
Burns, Nickerson, & Taylor, PLC
by Neal C. Taylor
Attorneys for Intervenors/Appellees
Phoenix PORTLEY, Judge
¶1 Courtney L. Stippell ("Stippell") appeals the superior court's order allowing the paternal grandparents to have scheduled visitation time with her minor child. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Stippell and Taylor J. Gainer gave birth to a child in 2006. She filed a paternity petition in February 2007, seeking sole custody of the child. The court granted the consent judgment, which declared Gainer the child's father, gave Stippell sole custody and awarded parenting time to Gainer. Gainer subsequently passed away.
¶3 His parents, Tammie Sue Gainer and James M. Gainer, and grandparents, Bobbie Taylor and Delos Taylor (collectively, "the grandparents"), filed a petition for visitation time with the child in January 2011 pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 25-409 (West 2012). After Stippell objected to any court-ordered visitation, the court set an evidentiary hearing. The grandparents and Stippell testified at the hearing, and the court subsequently granted the petition by awarding the grandparents visitation every other weekend and certain holidays.
Absent material revisions to this decision, we cite the current Westlaw version of applicable statutes.
DISCUSSION
¶4 Stippell argues the superior court abused its discretion by awarding the grandparents visitation, and requests that we amend the order to reduce the hours of visitation. She, however, did not include a transcript of the evidentiary hearing in the record on appeal. We, as a result, cannot determine whether the court abused its discretion in granting the petition for visitation. ARCAP 11(b)(1) ("If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a certified transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion."). Moreover, "[w]hen no transcript is provided on appeal, the reviewing court assumes that the record supports the trial court's decision." Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 572, ¶ 33, 212 P.3d 902, 910 (App. 2009). Consequently, we must presume that the missing transcript would support the family court's ruling.
¶5 Although Stippell is representing herself and is not trained in the law, the absence of the transcript makes it impossible for us to determine if the court abused its discretion. The minute entry from the hearing noted that Stippell and the grandparents testified and introduced exhibits. The court later found that Stippell's refusal to allow the grandparents to visit with their granddaughter was "understandable but is somewhat misplaced and unreasonable." On this limited record, we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion by granting visitation to the grandparents.
CONCLUSION
¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
____________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge
CONCURRING:
____________
PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge
____________
PETER B. SWANN, Judge