gno.law

A.R. v. Chris R. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080340 · 2023-11-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 21FDV03545E
Trial judge
Sharon L. Kalemkiarian
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
family
Panel
Truc T. Do (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T02:47Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Chris R.'s cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order against his daughter A.R., finding no current need for protection. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, ruling that Chris failed to provide an adequate record and comply with appellate procedural rules, thereby forfeiting his right to meaningful review.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Denial of Chris R.'s cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order against A.R.
“Consequently, we must presume the evidence supports the court’s findings and its resulting order was proper based on those findings.”
de novocorrectagree with court
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order not on the merits, but because the appellant failed to provide a complete record required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.122(b). Under the presumption of correctness, the absence of the cross-petition and exhibits in the record meant the court could not review the evidence, leading to an automatic affirmation.

Authorities

  • relied: Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 — A trial court's judgment is presumed correct, and the appellant bears the burden of affirmatively showing error.
  • relied: Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564 — An appellant must present an adequate record for review, which includes specific documents and exhibits.
  • relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — All inferences and presumptions are indulged to support a trial court's order on matters where the record is silent.
  • relied: Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19 — Self-represented litigants must follow the correct rules of procedure and are not excused from them.
  • relied: Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 — A self-represented party is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.
  • relied: Multani v. Witkin & Neal (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1428 — Appellants must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to the record and authority.
  • relied: CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537 — A reviewing court may not consider alleged facts that are outside of the record on appeal.
  • relied: In re James V. (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 300 — An appeal reviews the correctness of a judgment as of the time of its rendition, based on the record before the trial court.
  • relied: Reynaud v. Technicolor Creative Services USA, Inc. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1007 — A reviewing court does not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses.
  • relied: Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344 — An appellate court is not a second trier of fact.
  • relied: Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407 — A court cannot presume error from an incomplete record.
  • relied: Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043 — If the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the trial court's decision should be affirmed.
  • relied: Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655 — A respondent who fails to file their own appeal seeking affirmative relief forfeits the appellate challenge to the trial court's ruling.
  • relied: Transworld Systems, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 713 — A party waives the right to contest an adverse finding by failing to file a cross-appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the presumption of correctness and the requirement for an adequate record under California Rules of Court. It properly identifies that the appellant's failure to include the cross-petition and exhibits in the record precludes meaningful review of the trial court's factual findings.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

After an evidentiary hearing on cross-petitions for domestic violence restraining orders, the San Diego Superior Court denied both A.R.'s request against her father Chris R. and Chris's cross-petition against A.R., finding neither party was presently in need of protection because they no longer lived together and the July 2021 incident was over. On Chris's appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed in a memorandum opinion because Chris's briefing violated the Rules of Court and, most importantly, he failed to furnish an adequate record (omitting his cross-petition, the admitted exhibits, and A.R.'s petition), requiring the court to presume the evidence supported the trial court's findings; A.R.'s request in her respondent's brief to reverse the denial of her own petition was not considered because she did not cross-appeal.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Denial of Chris R.'s cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order against A.R. (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.), based on the finding that neither party was then in need of protection
“Without a proper record of the relevant proceedings, we cannot determine what, if any, evidence was presented to the trial court resulting in the challenged order.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
The court did not articulate the usual abuse-of-discretion standard for DVRO rulings; it instead applied the presumption of correctness (Denham, Jameson) and the inadequate-record rule (Ballard, Christie v. Kimball, Mountain Lion Coalition). Because the record omitted the cross-petition itself and the exhibits admitted at the hearing, and because Chris's brief lacked record citations and relied on post-ruling matters, the court could not evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence and properly presumed the finding of no present need for protection was supported. The result follows directly from settled Supreme Court authority.
A.R.'s request, made in her respondent's brief, that the appellate court reverse the portion of the January 3, 2022 order denying her own restraining order request against Chris
“However, A.R. did not appeal from that order, and the matter therefore is not properly before us.”
unclearnot reachedagree with court
A respondent who seeks affirmative relief from a trial court order must file her own notice of appeal or cross-appeal; absent one, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to grant that relief. The court correctly applied Celia S. v. Hugo H. and Transworld Systems in declining to reach A.R.'s request.

Authorities

  • relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — A judgment or order is presumed correct; all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it where the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.
  • relied: Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 — Appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record; absent one, the reviewing court presumes the evidence supports the trial court's findings and the order was proper.
  • relied: Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564 — An appellant must present an adequate record for review; failure to do so requires affirmance.
  • relied: Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655 — A respondent who fails to file his or her own appeal seeking affirmative relief forfeits any appellate challenge to the trial court's ruling.
  • relied: Transworld Systems, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 713 — A party waives the right to contest an adverse trial court finding by failing to file a cross-appeal.
  • relied: Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 — Self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural rules as attorneys, and an appellant's statement of facts must include all material evidence, not merely his own.
  • relied: Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19 — Self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure.
  • relied: Multani v. Witkin & Neal (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1428 — An appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by record citations and authority to show error.
  • relied: CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537 — A reviewing court may not consider alleged facts outside the record on appeal.
  • relied: In re James V. (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 300 — An appeal reviews the correctness of a judgment as of the time of its rendition on the record before the trial court; post-judgment matters are not considered.
  • relied: Reynaud v. Technicolor Creative Services USA, Inc. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1007 — A reviewing court does not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility; it is not a second trier of fact.
  • relied: Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344 — Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or redetermine credibility.
  • relied: Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407 — Where the trial court relied on documents not in the appellate record, error cannot be presumed from an incomplete record.
  • relied: Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043 — If the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the trial court's decision should be affirmed.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the presumption of correctness and the inadequate-record doctrine from Denham, Jameson, and Ballard to an appeal where the operative petition and admitted exhibits were missing, and it properly declines A.R.'s uncross-appealed request under Celia S. It does not state the substantive abuse-of-discretion standard governing DVRO denials or discuss the merits, but that omission is immaterial because the disposition rests entirely on appellant's procedural defaults.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/21/23 A.R. v. Chris R. 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

A.R., D080340 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 21FDV03545E)

CHRIS R., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sharon L. Kalemkiarian, Judge. Affirmed. Chris R., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. A.R., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Chris R. appeals from the trial court’s January 3, 2022 order denying his cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order against his then 17-year-old daughter A.R. (See Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) Chris and his 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. former wife of nearly ten years, Victoria R., have two children, A.R. and C.R.; they divorced in 2013. There are four appeals currently pending in this court involving Chris, Victoria, A.R., and Chris’s longtime girlfriend Naomi Yael Bar-Lev.2 This case began when A.R. sought a domestic violence restraining order against Chris stemming from an incident that occurred on July 10, 2021.3 Chris in response sought his own domestic violence restraining order against A.R. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied both requests, finding there was no evidence either party was then in need of protection. The court found that A.R. and Chris no longer lived together; since the July 2021 incident, neither of them had sought the other out or attempted to be near one another; and the incident was “over, and . . . done.” The court made its ruling without prejudice. Chris is appearing in propria persona, as he did in the trial court. Although self-represented, we may not excuse Chris from following the rules 2 See D080144 (A.R. v. Bar-Lev, case No. 37-2021-00030596-CU-HR-EC [civil restraining order issued for A.R. against Bar-Lev]); D080206 (Victoria R. v. Bar-Lev, case No. 37-2021-00031657-CU-HR-EC [civil restraining issued for Victoria against Bar-Lev]); and D080337 (Chris R. v. Victoria R., case No. D540635 [Chris’s appeal from denial of his petition for a domestic violence restraining order against Victoria]).

3 In her respondent’s brief, A.R. asks us to reverse a portion of the trial court’s January 3, 2022 order denying her request for a restraining order against Chris. However, A.R. did not appeal from that order, and the matter therefore is not properly before us. (See Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655, 665 [respondent who failed to file his own appeal seeking affirmative relief forfeits appellate challenge to trial court’s ruling]); Transworld Systems, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 713, 716, fn. 4 [defendant county waived its right to contest an adverse finding of the trial court by failing to file a cross-appeal].) 2 of appellate procedure. (See Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31 [“ ‘as is the case with attorneys, [self-represented] litigants must follow correct rules of procedure’ ”]; accord Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 (Nwosu) [a self-represented party “ ‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys’ ”].) A trial court’s judgment or order is presumed correct and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error on appeal. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [“ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ”]; accord Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608−609 (Jameson).) To make this showing, the appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to facts in the record and, if possible, authority to support the claim of error. (Multani v. Witkin & Neal (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1457; see Cal. Rules of Court,4 rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [briefs must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears”]; id., (a)(1)(B) [briefs must state each “point under a separate heading or subheading . . . and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority”].) In addition, the appellant’s factual summary must be limited to “significant facts . . . in the record” (rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 539, fn. 1 [“it is well established that a reviewing court may not give any consideration to alleged facts that are outside of the record on appeal”]) and 4 All further “rule” references are to the Rules of Court. 3 must include “ ‘ “all the material evidence on the point and not merely [his or her] own evidence” ’ ” (Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246). The appellant also must present an “adequate record” for review. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574−575 (Ballard).) Rule 8.122(b) sets out the required contents of a clerk’s transcript. Among others, it “must” include “[a]ny . . . document filed . . . in the case in superior court” pertaining to the issues on appeal (rule 8.122(b)(3)(A)); and “[a]ny exhibit admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged” (id., (b)(3)(B)). Here, Chris has failed to follow these basic rules of appellate procedure. His statement of facts contains legal argument, includes factual assertions without citation to the record, and is decidedly one-sided. He also relies on asserted facts outside the record to support his arguments, including facts after the trial court made its ruling (i.e., his questioning the “validity” of one of the court reporters who prepared part of the clerk’s transcript). We are not permitted to consider evidence arising after the trial court’s decision “because an appeal reviews the correctness of a judgment [or order] as of the time of its rendition, upon a record of matters which were before the trial court for its consideration.” (In re James V. (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 300, 304.) And, while Chris cites two cases in his argument, he fails to explain how those cases support his position and demonstrate legal error by the court. Chris’s arguments also show a misunderstanding of our role as an appellate court. A reviewing court does “ ‘not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses,’ ” as it is “ ‘ “not a second trier of fact.” ’ ” (Reynaud v. Technicolor Creative Services USA, Inc. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1015; accord Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 364.) Most consequential is Chris’s failure to provide us with a proper record. (Ballard, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 574−575.) The record does not contain 4 Chris’s cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order, which is the subject of this appeal; nor does it contain the exhibits admitted at the January 3, 2022 evidentiary hearing, as shown by the court minutes, or the domestic violence restraining order A.R. filed on July 19, 2021. (See rule 8.122(b)(3)(A), (B).) Without a proper record of the relevant proceedings, we cannot determine what, if any, evidence was presented to the trial court resulting in the challenged order. Consequently, we must presume the evidence supports the court’s findings and its resulting order was proper based on those findings. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609; accord Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412 [“To the extent the court relied on documents not before us, our review is hampered. We cannot presume error from an incomplete record.”]; Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9 [“if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed”].) DISPOSITION The trial court’s January 3, 2022 order is affirmed.

DO, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus