DISCUSSION

Tabarez argues that the court abused its discretion when it denied her request that counsel be appointed for K.R. and that psychological services be ordered for the child. Under Family Code section 3150, the court has discretion to appoint counsel for a minor child in a custody or visitation proceeding, if the court concludes that such appointment would be in the child’s best interest. Under Family Code section 3190, subdivision (a)(1)&(2), the court may order a minor child and parents in a custody or visitation dispute to participate in outpatient counseling with a licensed mental health professional if the court finds that the dispute between parents poses a

2 substantial danger to the best interest of the minor child and that counseling would be in the child’s best interest. Although Tabarez now argues that the court abused its discretion when it made orders regarding appointment of counsel and psychological services, this argument suffers from a fundamental defect, i.e., that the absence of a hearing transcript renders the record fatally incomplete for our review. A judgment is presumed correct. (Rhule v. WaveFront Technology, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1229 [“We do not presume error on appeal; rather, the opposite is true: we presume that the court’s . . . order is correct unless plaintiff demonstrates the trial court abused its discretion.”].) Appellant bears the burden of establishing error, which usually requires a complete record, including reporter’s transcripts, from which we can assess claims of error. (See, e.g., Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039 [Appellant is obliged “to present a complete record for appellate review, and in the absence of a required reporter’s transcript and other documents, we presume the judgment is correct.”].) The minute order of the hearing reflects that the hearing was not reported. Tabarez therefore cannot provide a reporter’s transcript, nor has she provided any legally cognizable substitute for such a transcript, making it impossible for us to consider the merits of her claims of error. In the case of In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, appellant argued that the court erred in denying visitation between siblings. The appellant did not provide the reporter’s transcript for the hearing at which the order was made. The court noted that without the transcript, the court could not determine what the court considered, what standard of proof it applied, or whether the order after hearing may have been the result of clerical error or some other inadvertence. The appellate court concluded that

3 in the absence of the record transcript, the court “cannot knowledgeably rule on the merits of this issue, and we consider the claim abandoned.” (Id. at pp. 1002–1003). We confront the same issue in this appeal. In the absence of a reporter’s transcript, we cannot determine whether the court abused its discretion in any way in making the orders.

DISPOSITION1

The judgment is affirmed. Robinson is entitled to costs on appeal.

KELETY, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P. J.

DATO, J.

1 In light of the disposition, the pending motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

4