gno.law

Dumas v. Dumas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086074 · 2026-05-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 25FDV00345C
Trial judge
Rebecca F. Zipp
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
family
Panel
Laurence D. Rubin (author), Judith D. McConnell, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T02:43Z · confidence high

The trial court issued a domestic violence restraining order against Johnny Dumas, granting Cari Dumas sole physical custody and limited visitation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order because the appellant failed to provide a sufficient record to demonstrate any error.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Affirmance of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) due to insufficient record
“Johnny’s failure to provide a record sufficient to support his claims of error requires we reject the claims and affirm the challenged DVRO.”
de novocorrectagree with court
The appellate court correctly applied the presumption of correctness to the trial court's order. Because the appellant failed to provide a transcript or adequate record to demonstrate error, the burden remained on him to show the trial court acted improperly, which he did not do.

Authorities

  • relied: In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130 — A trial court's order is presumed correct on appeal.
  • relied: Ashby v. Ashby (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 491 — A trial court's order is presumed correct on appeal.
  • relied: Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281 — The appellant bears the burden of providing a sufficient record to show error.
  • relied: Campbell v. Walls (1888) 77 Cal. 250 — The appellant bears the burden of providing a sufficient record to show error.
  • relied: Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969 — The appellant bears the burden of providing a sufficient record to show error.
  • relied: Regents of University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824 — A motion to augment the record is properly denied if the movant fails to show the documents were lodged or filed with the superior court.
  • relied: Kyle v. Carmon (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 901 — A motion to augment the record is properly denied if the transcript was prepared by a person not certified as a court reporter.
  • relied: Shenefield v. Shenefield (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 619 — Where no minutes or transcript exist and no error is evident on the face of the record, the court presumes the minutes or transcript would show no error.
  • relied: Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181 — Where no minutes or transcript exist and no error is evident on the face of the record, the court presumes the minutes or transcript would show no error.
  • relied: Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929 — Failure to provide a sufficient record requires the court to reject claims of error and affirm the order.
  • relied: Roberts v. Home Ins. Indem. Co. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 313 — Failure to provide a sufficient record requires the court to reject claims of error and affirm the order.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound because it correctly applies the well-established legal principle that an appellant must provide a sufficient record to demonstrate error, and it properly denies the motion to augment based on the lack of proof that the offered materials were part of the official record. The court's reliance on the presumption of correctness in the absence of a transcript is standard California appellate practice.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The San Diego family court, after an evidentiary hearing at which both parties and two witnesses testified and a video was played, denied Johnny Dumas's DVRO request, granted Cari Ann Nassen Dumas's DVRO against him, awarded Cari sole physical custody of their child, and gave Johnny weekend visitation. On appeal, the Fourth District, Division One, affirmed because Johnny furnished no adequate record (no reporter's transcript, no minutes, no DVRO requests, an unhelpful settled statement), denied his motion to augment with unauthenticated materials, and applied the presumption of correctness to reject all six claims of error.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Issuance of the DVRO against Johnny (no-abuse, no-contact, stay-away orders), together with the sole-physical-custody award to Cari and the weekend visitation order
“He raises several claims of error but provides no record adequate for us to review any of them. We therefore must affirm the DVRO.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
The court did not apply a merits standard of review; it affirmed on the presumption of correctness and the appellant's failure to supply a record. The opinion catalogues what is missing (DVRO requests, minutes, transcript, the video, any discovery request) and notes the settled statement recalled nothing about the testimony or exhibits. On that showing, settled California authority (Arceneaux, Maria P., Foust, Randall) compels affirmance.
Claimed denial of discovery of the child's therapist's identity
“Johnny raises six claims of error: (1) the family court’s “denial of discovery of the child’s therapist’s identity deprived [him] of due process”;”
unclearnot reachedagree with court
The appendix contains no discovery request or ruling, so there is nothing to review; the court properly declined to reach the merits.
Claimed reliance on hearsay testimony and absence of a transcript
“He has not provided a reporter’s transcript of the hearing, apparently because no court reporter was present.”
unclearnot reachedagree with court
Without a transcript or minutes, hearsay objections and rulings cannot be identified. The court noted the cited portion of the appendix contains no request for a court reporter, only argument. The court did not discuss Jameson v. Desta or whether Johnny had a fee waiver, but on this record no request for a reporter was shown, so the omission does not undermine the result.
Claimed review of key video evidence without sound
“Johnny did not submit to this court the “key video” he says “was improperly considered” because the sound was not played.”
unclearnot reachedagree with court
The video was not in the record and the court could not verify that the recordings offered on augmentation were the ones considered below; denial of augmentation under rule 8.155(a)(1)(A) and Sheily was proper, and the claim could not be reviewed.
Claimed procedural error in treating Johnny as the respondent, and claimed exclusion of his documentary evidence
“The court “d[id] not recall”: (1) “the specifics of the testimony presented – other than what is noted in the court’s minute order”; (2) “whether any exhibits were introduced or admitted”; or (3) “whether any exhibits were introduced but not admitted.””
unclearnot reachedagree with court
Each party filed a DVRO request, so Johnny was in fact a respondent on Cari's request, and the settled statement could not establish what exhibits were offered or excluded. The court correctly presumed the missing record would show no error.
Claimed vague and unenforceable visitation order and failure to enforce it
“Without a record of the DVRO requests made, evidence offered, objections raised, arguments advanced, and rulings made at the evidentiary hearing, we cannot determine whether the court committed the errors of which Johnny complains.”
unclearnot reachedagree with court
Only six of the fifteen pages of the DVRO were provided, and any post-order enforcement issues are outside the appeal from the DVRO. The court's refusal to reach this claim follows from the inadequate record.

Authorities

  • relied: In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130 — A judgment or order is presumed correct and the appellant bears the burden of affirmatively showing error.
  • relied: Ashby v. Ashby (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 491 — Family law orders come to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness.
  • relied: Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281 — The appellant must provide an adequate record demonstrating error; failure to do so requires the claim be resolved against the appellant.
  • relied: Campbell v. Walls (1888) 77 Cal. 250 — Appellant bears the burden of furnishing a record sufficient to show error.
  • relied: Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969 — Appellant's failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against the appellant.
  • relied: Regents of University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824 — A motion to augment is properly denied where the movant fails to show the documents were filed or lodged in the superior court.
  • relied: Kyle v. Carmon (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 901 — Augmentation is denied for materials not part of the superior court record, such as an uncertified hearing transcript.
  • relied: Shenefield v. Shenefield (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 619 — Absent a reporter's transcript or settled statement of a DVRO hearing, the appellate court presumes the evidence supported the order and no error occurred.
  • relied: Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181 — Where no reporter's transcript is provided, the appellate court presumes what occurred at the hearing supports the judgment and treats the appeal as on the judgment roll.
  • relied: Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929 — Failure to provide an adequate record, including a reporter's transcript or settled statement, requires affirmance of the challenged order.
  • relied: Roberts v. Home Ins. Indem. Co. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 313 — Claims of error that cannot be evaluated on the record provided must be rejected and the judgment affirmed.
  • missed: Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 — A litigant with a fee waiver who requests an official court reporter is entitled to one, and a policy denying reporters to fee-waiver litigants is invalid; the court did not address this in disposing of the self-represented appellant's claim that the absence of a transcript deprived him of review, though it found no request for a reporter in the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the presumption of correctness and the appellant's burden to furnish an adequate record, with well-chosen authorities for each step including the denial of augmentation under rule 8.155 and Sheily. It did not discuss Jameson v. Desta or whether the in pro per appellant had a fee waiver entitling him to a court reporter, though its finding that the cited appendix contained no reporter request makes the omission immaterial to the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/18/26 Dumas v. Dumas CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY DUMAS, D086074

Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 25FDV00345C)

CARI ANN NASSEN DUMAS,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rebecca F. Zipp, Judge. Affirmed. Johnny Dumas, in pro. per., for Appellant. Cari Ann Nassen Dumas, in pro. per., for Respondent.

Johnny Dumas appeals the domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) the family court issued against him at the request of Cari Ann Nassen Dumas. He raises several claims of error but provides no record adequate for us to review any of them. We therefore must affirm the DVRO. BACKGROUND Johnny and Cari are the parents of a 14-year-old child. Each filed in the family court a request for a DVRO against the other. The court held a hearing at which the parties and two nonparty witnesses testified and a video was played that showed Johnny “body checking” Cari. The court denied Johhny’s DVRO request and granted Cari’s. It issued the standard no-abuse, no-contact, and stay-away orders; awarded Cari sole physical custody of the child; and granted Johnny visitation between noon and 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. DISCUSSION Johnny raises six claims of error: (1) the family court’s “denial of discovery of the child’s therapist’s identity deprived [him] of due process”; (2) “the absence of a transcript and reliance on hearsay testimony deprived [him] of meaningful appellate review”; (3) the court’s “reviewing key video evidence without sound denied [him] a fair hearing”; (4) “treating [him] as the [r]espondent constituted procedural error affecting fairness”; (5) “excluding documentary evidence offered by [him] deprived him of the right to present a defense”; and (6) the court’s “vague and unenforceable visitation order, coupled with failure to enforce it, constituted abuse of discretion.” Johnny asks us to reverse the DVRO; to restore his visitation and parental rights; to “[r]emand the matter with instructions for the [family] court to consider all evidence, enforce visitation orders, and facilitate family mediation as appropriate”; and to “[g]rant such other relief as this [c]ourt deems just and proper to protect [his] rights and ensure the well-being of his child.” We cannot address the merits of any of the asserted claims of error because Johnny has not provided us with a record adequate to do so. The 2 DVRO comes to this court with a presumption it is correct. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Ashby v. Ashby (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 491, 509.) To overcome that presumption, Johnny has the burden to provide this court with a record of the proceedings before the family court that is sufficient to show the court committed an error that would justify reversal of the DVRO. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295; Campbell v. Walls (1888) 77 Cal. 250, 253; Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969, 976.) He has not sustained that burden. The appendix Johnny provided contains argumentative statements about his first four claims of error, an unsigned “affidavit of Mary Randolph” containing argumentative assertions about her observations at the DVRO hearing, a copy of a receipt for clothing purchases, and six of the 15 pages of the DVRO he is challenging. The appendix does not contain the parties’ DVRO requests, any discovery request by Johnny, or the minutes of the hearing on the DVRO requests. Johnny did not submit to this court the “key video” he says “was improperly considered” because the sound was not played. He has not provided a reporter’s transcript of the hearing, apparently because no court reporter was present. Johnny asserts the family court failed to provide a transcript despite his requests, but the portion of the appendix he cites in support of the assertion contains no request for a court reporter. It contains only argument that the lack of a transcript “undermines [his] right to a fair trial and presents grounds for appeal.” Johnny obtained a settled statement from the family court (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137), but it is of little use to us. The court “d[id] not recall”: (1) “the specifics of the testimony presented – other than what is noted in the court’s minute order”; (2) “whether any exhibits were introduced or admitted”; or (3) “whether any exhibits were introduced but not admitted.”

3 Johnny filed a motion to augment the record with what he claims are a declaration Cari filed, “the associated filing receipt,” and two audiovisual recordings “submitted to and reviewed by the [family] court.” The declaration is missing a page and bears no file stamp. The “associated filing receipt” is the same receipt for clothing purchases Johnny included in his appendix. The audiovisual recordings capture portions of what Johnny says was a “verbal dispute” between Cari and Mary Randolph in which his role “was limited to intervening and de-escalating the situation.” We have no way to verify whether the recordings are authentic, were lodged or filed with the family court, or were considered by it. We therefore deny the motion to augment. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A) [authorizing augmentation with “[a]ny document filed or lodged in the case in superior court”]; Regents of University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824, 826–827, fn. 1 [denying motion to augment record with documents movant failed to show were lodged or filed with superior court]; Kyle v. Carmon (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 901, 906, fn. 2 [denying motion to augment record with hearing transcript prepared by person not certified as court reporter].) Without a record of the DVRO requests made, evidence offered, objections raised, arguments advanced, and rulings made at the evidentiary hearing, we cannot determine whether the court committed the errors of which Johnny complains. Where, as here, we have no minutes or reporter’s transcript of the hearing and no error is evident on the face of the minimal record we do have, we presume the minutes or transcript would show there was no error. (Shenefield v. Shenefield (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 619, 633 & fn. 12; Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186– 187.) Johnny’s failure to provide a record sufficient to support his claims of 4 error requires we reject the claims and affirm the challenged DVRO. (Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935; Roberts v. Home Ins. Indem. Co. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 313, 316.) DISPOSITION The DVRO is affirmed. Respondent shall recover her costs on appeal.

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus