California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Orange Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. Elizabeth G. (In re Emery G.), C/w G059504, G059323 (Cal. App. 2021):
whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the order in question advanced the "best interest" of the child. We are required to uphold the ruling if it is correct on any basis, regardless of whether such basis was actually invoked. [Citation.]' [Citation.] [] '"[E]valuating the factual basis for an exercise of discretion is similar to analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence for the ruling. ... Broad deference must be shown to the trial judge. The reviewing court should interfere only '"if [it] find[s] that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court's action, no judge could reasonably have made the order that he did." . . .'" [Citations.]' [Citation.] [] '"The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion, and unless a clear case of abuse is shown and unless there has been a miscarriage of justice a reviewing court will not substitute its opinion and thereby divest the trial court of its discretionary power." [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (Rich v. Thatcher (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1182.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.