Filed 8/3/17 Guardianship of J.B. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----





Guardianship of the Persons of J.B. et al., Minors.

VICKY D.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

C081448

(Super. Ct. No. 34201500183862PRGPFRC)

A grandmother appeals the probate court’s denial of her application for a probate guardianship of her grandchildren, J.B. (then age 7) and B.B. (then age 5).
The appellate record does not contain a reporter’s transcript of any proceeding in the probate court. Accordingly, this is known as a “judgment roll” appeal. On a judgment roll appeal, every presumption is in favor of the judgment. On this record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2015, grandmother petitioned for a probate guardianship of minors. Mother did not consent. Grandmother alleged the biological father was absent and mother failed to find reliable and adequate child care providers for the minors while she worked. The minors also had bruises on their faces, necks and arms, numerous mosquito bites, and possible impetigo. According to grandmother, there were also indications mother hit and yelled at minors. In addition, grandmother stated there were signs of child abuse and neglect, including not eating meals, bedwetting, “gritting teeth,” snoring, taking off their clothes for no reason, not enjoying baths as much as they used to, and “awaken[ing] crying and frustrated.” Grandmother also alleged mother left the minors unsupervised during play, let them watch too much television, and periodically refused to let them visit grandmother, which disrupted the minors’ friendships. The minors were tardy at school and submitted homework late. Additionally, the minors had started using foul language and hitting each other after being with certain child care providers. Grandmother alleged the minors “need to be with someone they ‘trust’ ” and “feel safe with.” She stated she would provide a nurturing and safe environment for the minors, especially since she has a history of caring for children.
According to the court’s January 7, 2016 minute order included in the record, a guardianship investigation report was previously filed, but the appellate record does not contain a copy of the report. (Prob. Code, § 1513.) During a hearing on October 27, 2015, the probate court scheduled a probate trial for January 7, 2016. The appellate record does not contain a reporter’s transcript of this hearing.
On January 6, 2016, grandmother filed a declaration stating she had “chosen to drop the hearing for [g]uardianship.” Despite these statements, she appears to have persisted in her petition, noting she had filed the request on behalf of the minors’ best “interests.” Grandmother was “acting as [g]uardian and grandmother of [the minors]” and would continue to assist them. Grandmother reiterated she would provide a positive environment for the minors, especially since she lived near their school, was active in her church, and was trained in first aid. According to grandmother, other potential guardians were inappropriate and she had filed restraining orders against them.
During the January 7, 2016 probate trial, the probate court denied grandmother’s verbal request for a continuance. The court indicated it had read and considered the probate court investigator’s report and denied grandmother’s petition for guardianship appointment. (§ 1513, subd. (c).) The record does not contain a transcript of this hearing or any decision notes.
As noted at the outset, grandmother appealed. The appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript of any proceeding in the probate court.
DISCUSSION
Upon petition, a trial court may appoint a guardian of the person “if it appears necessary or convenient.” (§§ 1510, subd. (a), 1514, subd. (a).) Under Family Code section 3020, subdivision (a), “the health, safety, and welfare of children shall be the court’s primary concern in determining the best interest of children when making any orders regarding the physical or legal custody or visitation of children.” (See In re Guardianship of Ann S. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1110, 1123 [guardianship in contested cases is determined primarily by “the best interest of the child, as determined under the custody statutes”].) A court may not grant custody to a nonparent over parental objection unless it finds “clear and convincing evidence” that “granting custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child and that granting custody to the nonparent is required to serve the best interest of the child.” (Fam. Code, § 3041, subds. (a) & (b); see also In re Guardianship of Ann S., at p. 1123.)
The party challenging the judgment bears the burden to provide an adequate record on appeal to assess claims of error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) In a judgment roll appeal, “ ‘every presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgment and any condition of facts consistent with its validity will be presumed to have existed rather than one which will defeat it. [Citation.] The sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open to review. [Citation.]’ ” (Estate of Kievernagel (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1031.)
To the extent grandmother is arguing the probate court (a) improperly determined granting custody to mother would not be detrimental to the minors and granting custody to grandmother was not required to serve the best interest of the minors, and (b) erred in denying her request for a continuance of the January 7 probate trial, grandmother cannot prevail on these issues because she chose to proceed with her appeal on the judgment roll alone. On appeal, we must presume the probate court’s rulings are correct.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
RAYE, P. J.



/s/
BUTZ, J.