Can a judge modify a finding nunc pro tunc in a subsequent order for the purpose of affirming the judgment?

While it is true that a trial court cannot modify its findings nunc pro tunc in a subsequent order for the purpose of affirming the judgment (Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 629), Taghavi is precluded from raising this issue on appeal for a different reason. The April 2012 order is competent to establish that in the trial court, Taghavi has and continues to refuse to accept supervised visitation as an alternative. As a matter of judicial estoppel, she consequently cannot maintain a contrary position here to trifle with this court.