*1210 OPINION
Anitа Craddick appeals the trial court's decision in the action dissolving her marriage to James R. Graddick. Because the trial court made no record of the hearing, she has not provided us with a transcript. She raises the following restated issue for review: whether an appellant who is unable to file a transcript is entitled to pursue his or her appeal оr to receive a new hearing.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Anita and James are the parents of J.G. On July 3, 2000, James filed a petition for dissolution and on April 4, 2001, he filed an amended petition. On June 7, 2001, the trial court held a final hearing at which it granted custody of J.G. to James and granted thе dissolution. Anita did not attend the hearing.
On September 4, 2001, Anita filed a motion to set aside the order granting the dissolution, contending that she did not have notice of the final hearing. The trial court granted her petition as to custody and child support only аnd ordered that James retain temporary custody of J.G. pending the completion of a report regarding the parties.
On January 15, 2002, the trial court held a second final hearing. Subsequently, the trial court issued its order granting custody of J.G. to James. Anita filed her notice of appeal, but learned in the course of preparing her appeal that no record was made of the hearing. Her trial attorney does not have sufficient recollection of the hearing to reconstruct it.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Anita argues that because the trial court failed to make a record, she is unable to perfect an aрpeal and therefore has no adequate remedy. The appellant bears the burden of presenting a reсord that is complete with respect to the issues raised on appeal. Ford v. State,
The rule then provides for responses to the statement and certification by the trial cоurt. The material then becomes a part of the clerk's record. Compliance with this rule sustains the appellant's burden of presenting a complete record on appeal. Ford,
Here, Anita concedes that the Ind. Appellate Rules "provide a mechanism to per-feet a civil appeal in most cases." Appellant's Brief at 11. However, she cоntends that there is no means available to her in spite of the rule because no record was made of the hearing, and her trial counsel's memory of the proceedings is insuffi *1211 cient to assist her in preparing a statement of the evidenсe.
However, the rule requires the appellant to prepare a statement of the evidence from the best available source. Given that Anita's trial counsel has an insufficient recollection of the hearing, he is not the best аvailable source. However, the rule specifically contemplates that Anita could have prepared a statement from her own recollection. Once prepared, the statement should have been submitted to James for objections. Finally, Anita should have submitted the statement to the trial court for certification. Anita did not comply with the specifications of the rule under the circumstances. We disagree with her contention that she was unable to perfect appeal. Rather, she failed to take the appropriate measures to discharge her burden of рroviding this court with a record which allows us to review the substantive contentions. Thus, we must dismiss Anita's appeal.
That said, this case rаises an important issue in that it demonstrates that some courts of record, as did the Marion Superi- or Court in the present instance, are conducting appealable proceedings without making a record. Courts of record should reсord all proceedings they conduct, especially proceedings, such as this one, on final orders. The folly of failing to do so is demonstrated. by this case, in which the review of a final decision regarding the custody of a child is hindered becаuse of the trial court's failure to record the proceedings. Moreover, if the trial court does not make a rеcord of the proceeding, it should secure a waiver of recording on the record to leave no doubt in the minds оf all of those involved as to the status of the record.
We recognize earlier decisions of this court that fail to find error in failing to make a record. However, in many of these cases, the parties expressly or impliedly waived the rеcordation. of the hearing. See, e.g., Showley v. Showley,
Even so, holding that there is no error in failing to record under the particular facts of a given case is not the same as holding that failing to make a record оr secure an on-the-record waiver of a record constitutes good practice, and we strongly encourage trial courts to make an appropriate record of the proceedings before them or secure an on-the-record waiver.
Affirmed.