Theresa L. v. Brandi W.

Filed 7/13/07 Theresa L. v. Brandi W. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Appellant Theresa L. appeals from an order terminating the guardianship of T. On appeal, she contends that the trial court did not follow certain procedures to ensure T.s safety and there was insufficient evidence to support the order. We find no error and affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background[1]

Appellant is the mother of respondent Brandi W. Respondent is T.s mother. On October 24, 2005, appellant filed a petition for appointment of guardianship of T. The hearing on the petition was scheduled for January 3, 2006.

On November 3, 2005, appellant sought a temporary restraining order against respondent. She alleged that respondent pulled her hair, hit her, and kicked her while she was on the ground after she told her that she had obtained temporary guardianship of T. The trial court issued the temporary restraining order. Appellants subsequent request to reissue the temporary restraining order was also granted.

On January 4, 2006, the trial court ordered a hearing for March 1, 2006 to review certain issues, including the request for the restraining order and respondents written answer. The trial court also ordered appellant to deliver respondents personal property to her.

On January 17, 2006, the trial court ordered the parties to orientation and mediation at Family Court Services. It also ordered supervised visitation for respondent, appointment of counsel for T., and extended temporary letters of guardianship until February 21, 2006.

On January 23, 2006, respondent filed an answer to the temporary restraining order. She alleged that she and appellant had disputes about T.s care, because they did not share the same religious beliefs. She further alleged that appellant has always received government aid and wanted custody of T. in order to continue receiving aid. She also alleged that she was holding T. when appellant showed her the order relating to the temporary guardianship, and the parties began struggling over T. Respondent claimed that she acted in self-defense. Respondent attached a letter from appellants brother, who expressed support for respondent.

On January 26, 2006, the trial court issued an order that authorized T.s counsel to have access to T. and T.s medical records.

On February 2, 2006, upon request of T.s counsel, the trial court assumed jurisdiction of both restraining order petitions and consolidated that case with the case on the temporary guardianship. The trial court also ordered visitation by respondent from Thursday at 10:00 a.m. until Friday at 6:00 p.m. and Sunday at 12:30 p.m. until Monday at 8:30 p.m., and weekly therapy for respondent. A hearing for review of visitation was set for February 28, 2006. A guardianship hearing was set for March 28, 2006.

On February 28, 2006, the trial court continued the matter until March 1, 2006. On March 1, 2006, the juvenile court terminated the temporary guardianship.

II. Discussion

Relying on California Rules of Court, rule 5.215[2], appellant first contends that the trial court did not follow the protocol for domestic violence cases to ensure T.s safety.

Rule 5.215, subdivision (d)(1) provides that Family Court Services must handle domestic violence cases in accordance with pertinent state laws and all applicable rules of court . . . . Thus, Family Court Services must conduct a domestic violence assessment and offer appropriate services, including child custody evaluation, supervised visitation, and other services. (Rule 5.215, subd. (d)(2)(D).) Here the trial court ordered a parenting class and therapy for respondent. Appellant does not indicate what other services were required in the present case. Accordingly, we find no error.

Appellant next appears to be arguing that she was entitled to separate sessions for the evaluation of the case. Where there has been a history of domestic violence between the parties, upon request, the Family Court Services mediator, counselor, evaluator, or investigator must meet with the parties separately and at separate times. . . . Family Court Services must provide information to the parties regarding their options for separate sessions . . . . (Rule 5.215, subd. (d)(6).) However, when a party has failed to object before the trial court, he or she has waived the issue on appeal. (Steve J. v.Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 810.) Here, since appellant did not raise this issue before the trial court, it has been waived on appeal.

Appellant next relies on Family Code section 3044. It states that [u]pon a finding by the court that a party seeking custody of a child has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody of the child . . . , there is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of the child . . . . She also claims that the trial court did not consider T.s best interests (Fam. Code, 3011) or that respondent had abused T. (Pen. Code, 11165.2). She further asserts that no agency conducted an adequate investigation.

A reviewing court presumes that the evidence supports the judgment, and thus the appellant must meet his or her burden of establishing that the evidence fails to do so. (Kanner v. Globe Bottling Co. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d, 559, 564.) Here, however, we have no reporters transcripts for any of the hearings. Since appellant has not met her burden to provide an adequate record on appeal, we are unable to review her claims. (Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn.1.) Therefore, we must presume that the evidence supports the judgment.

III. Disposition

The order is affirmed.

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

________________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.

________________________________

Duffy, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

[1] Appellant has failed to provide reporters transcripts of any of the hearings. Thus, our recitation of the facts is limited.

[2] All further rule references will be to the California Rules of Court.