Case Name: Jennifer PEREZ, Appellant, v. Paul Grant DWYER, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2019-02-27
Citations: 271 So. 3d 1116
Docket Number: No. 3D18-1931
Parties: Jennifer PEREZ, Appellant,
v.
Paul Grant DWYER, Appellee.
Judges: Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 271
Pages: 1116–1117

Head Matter:
Jennifer PEREZ, Appellant,
v.
Paul Grant DWYER, Appellee.
No. 3D18-1931
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed February 27, 2019
Rehearing Denied March 20, 2019
Jennifer Perez, in proper person.
Filler Rodriguez, LLP, and Catherine M. Rodriguez, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jennifer Perez (the mother) appeals from an order suspending her timesharing with the parties' child. We review the trial court's order for an abuse of discretion. Ryan v. Ryan, 257 So.3d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (noting: "The trial court's limitations on the Former Wife's visitation are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The court has discretion to restrict or deny visitation to protect the welfare of the child") (citation omitted).
The record on appeal is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, as Perez has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing conducted by the trial court. Under these circumstances, and given that there are no errors on the face of the order on appeal, we are compelled to affirm. As the Florida Supreme Court held in Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) :
In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.... When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal. The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.
See also Bisnauth v. Leelum, 233 So.3d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So.3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; Hill v. Calderin, 47 So.3d 852, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Affirmed.