Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. FL084818
Bamattre-Manoukian, ACTING P.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this marital dissolution action, appellant Oana Ionel, a self-represented litigant, seeks review of a contempt order filed on September 12, 2008. She argues that the trial court erred in finding her in contempt for refusing to comply with the court’s orders to execute the documents necessary for her two children to travel to Europe with their father, respondent Adrian Ionel. According to Oana, federal law prohibits Adrian from obtaining a United States passport because he is in arrears on his child support payments. We will dismiss the appeal because, as we will explain, Oana seeks review of a nonappealable order.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Our summary of the factual and procedural background is taken from the very limited record on appeal. According to Oana, she and Adrian, both from Romania, were married in Germany in 1989 and separated in 1999 after relocating to the United States. The record does not indicate whether a judgment of dissolution has been entered. During the marriage, they had two children, Julia, born in 1993 in Germany, and Edward, born in 1994 in Japan. The record on appeal is unclear as to the citizenship of Oana and Adrian, but it appears that neither was a United States citizen at the time of the proceedings below.
On April 11, 2007, the trial court issued its order following a child custody assessment. Paragraph 25, subdivision 2 of the order states, “The parties have agreed to cooperate to apply for United States citizenship and United States passports for the children, on the assumption that the children may have dual citizenship and the children would not be required to relinquish their Germany or European Union citizenship or passports. The parties have also agreed to cooperate to apply for any Germany or European Union passports or renewals for the children. The parents shall cooperate to secure these documents and any other documents needed for the children’s travel as soon as possible. The children’s travel out of the country is not contingent on their receiving United States citizenship or passports.”
On October 16, 2007, the trial court issued its findings and order after hearing that included the following orders: “The parties are ordered to cooperate to apply for any German or European Union passports or renewals for the children, including any children’s passport. [¶] [Oana] is ordered to complete and co-sign any applications or provide any documents necessary for the German or European Union passports for the children within 14 days. [¶] The parties are ordered to cooperate to apply for United States citizenship and United States passports for the children, on the assumption that the children may have dual citizenship and the children would not be required to relinquish their German or European Union citizenship or passports.”
The trial court issued an order on February 22, 2008, that restated the October 16, 2007 order and directed Oana to comply with the order as follows: “[Oana] is ordered to complete and co-sign any applications or provide any documents necessary for the German or European Union passports for the children by 2/21/08.”
Oana did not comply with the February 22, 2008 order and on February 29, 2008, the trial court issued the following findings and order after hearing: “Any signatures required for citizenship or passports may be signed by the clerk of the court on behalf of [Oana].” However, the record reflects that the German consulate did not accept the clerk’s signature on the children’s passport applications.
Adrian filed an order to show cause and affidavit for contempt, dated April 2, 2008, that alleged, among other things, that Oana had failed to comply with the court orders requiring her to cooperate with him in obtaining passports for their children, including her refusal to sign documents from the German consulate. An evidentiary hearing on the order to show cause was held on September 12, 2008.
At the conclusion of the September 12, 2008 hearing, the trial court found that Oana had not complied with the orders requiring her to cooperate with Adrian in obtaining the documents necessary for the children’s European travel and therefore she was guilty of violating the April 11, 2007 order, the October 16, 2007 order, and the February 14, 2008 order (made in open court and reflected in a minute order not included in the record). The court rejected Oana’s argument that she had properly failed to comply because travel outside of the United States would allow Adrian to abduct the children.
The trial court’s findings and order regarding contempt filed on September 12, 2008, stated that the court found that Oana was guilty of contempt on three counts, as set forth in Adrian’s order to show cause and affidavit for contempt.
The record further reflects that sentencing on the contempt order did not take place because the trial court dismissed the contempt action on January 28, 2009, after Adrian advised the court that he “did not want to continue to pursue the contempt proceeding, which has been set for sentencing.” Although the trial court determined that the contempt action could be dismissed, based upon Adrian’s request, the court stated to Oana, “I need to emphasize to you that Mr. Ionel filed a contempt charge, you were found guilty of contempt, and the only reason that you’re not being sentenced on contempt at some point in the future is because Mr. Ionel has agreed to withdraw.... [¶] I’m going to accept that even though... I found that you had violated Court orders.... It’s through Mr. Ionel’s concern for the best interest of your children that this contempt proceeding is ending....”
Oana filed a notice of appeal from the September 12, 2008 findings and order regarding contempt on March 11, 2009.
III. DISCUSSION
No respondent's brief was filed in this case. We will therefore decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2); Nakamura v. Parker (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 327, 334.)
We understand Oana to argue in her opening brief that the trial court erred in finding her in contempt for violating the court orders requiring her to co-sign the necessary documents for the children to travel internationally because federal law prohibits persons, such as Adrian, who are in arrears on child support payments from obtaining a United States passport.
However, we must first address the threshold issue of appealability. “ ‘[S]ince the question of appealability goes to our jurisdiction, we are dutybound to consider it on our own motion.’ ” (Nguyen v. Calhoun (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 428, 436, quoting Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.)
The general rules regarding appealability are well established. “In California, the right to appeal is governed solely by statute and, except as provided by the Legislature, the appellate courts have no jurisdiction to entertain appeals. An appealable judgment or order is essential to appellate jurisdiction, and the court, on its own motion, must dismiss an appeal from a nonappealable order. [Citation.]” (Art Movers, Inc. v. Ni West, Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 640, 645.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 is the governing statute and provides in pertinent part, “(a) An appeal, other than in a limited civil case, is to the court of appeal. An appeal, other than in a limited civil case, may be taken from any of the following: [¶] (1) From a judgment, except (A) an interlocutory judgment, other than as provided in paragraphs (8), (9), and (11), or (B) a judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222....” Thus, as the California Supreme Court has instructed, “[j]udgments and orders made in contempt proceedings are final and conclusive; as such, they are nonappealable. ([Code Civ. Proc., ] §§ 1222, 904.1, subd. (a)(2).) Review may be had by the extraordinary writs of certiorari or, where appropriate, habeas corpus [citation]....” (Moffat v. Moffat (1980) 27 Cal.3d 645, 656; Bermudez v. Municipal Court (1992) 1 Cal.4th 855, 861, fn. 5.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1222 provides, “The judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.”
In the present case, Oana seeks review of the September 12, 2008 findings and order regarding contempt. Because the September 12, 2008 order was made in a contempt proceeding, it is a nonappealable order. We will therefore, on our own motion, dismiss the appeal because it concerns a nonappealable order. (Art Movers, Inc. v. Ni West, Inc., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 645.)
IV. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: MIHARA, J., MCADAMS, J.