Can a minute order be used to prove that the trial judge was wrongfully disposed of a motion to grant a writ of habeas corpus?

Appellants cite cases indicating that occasionally a minute order may be used to show that the trial court used an erroneous reasoning process in arriving at the result (see e.g., Ehrenreich v. Shelton, 213 Cal.App.2d 376, 378, 28 Cal.Rptr. 855), but this does not appear to be the situation here presented. The trial court's minute order first grants the writ of habeas corpus as prayed, and second, denies appellants' petition to declare Jackijo free from parental control. The trial judge attempted to soften the impact of his decision by stating that he sympathized with appellants and further that he had no alternative under the facts and the law than to grant this relief. In so doing, he refers to the letter which is petitioner's exhibit 12. This does not mean that the court felt it was absolutely governed by exhibit 12 nor that it did anything other than what it considered its duty under the facts and the law before it. It merely expresses a sympathy for appellants in causing the minor to be removed from them [244 Cal.App.2d 460] under the writ of habeas corpus and the denial of their petition to declare the minor an abandoned child.