Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 10FL103292, Duane T. Neary, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.).
Adel Guirguis, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Douglas M. Press, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul Reynaga and Marina L. Soto, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
O’LEARY, J.
Adel Guirguis appeals from a judgment in this proceeding filed by the Orange County Department of Child Support Services ordering him to pay child support. He has shown no error, and we affirm the judgment.
The record on appeal consists of only a clerk’s transcript containing three documents in addition to the docket report: the judgment entered November 8, 2010, the notice of appeal, and the notice designating the record on appeal. Guirguis’s opening brief attached six documents labeled “exhibits, ” five of which postdate the judgment and one of which is an incomplete copy of the judgment. We previously ordered the documents be stricken and disregarded. The support action was filed on June 22, 2010. The judgment states the matter proceeded by way of a contested trial. Guirguis admitted paternity. He was ordered to pay guideline support of $443 per month beginning July 2010, based on a monthly gross income of $2,417.
Guirguis represents himself on appeal. His opening brief contains one page of argument with no analysis of any legal issues and no citations to any authority. We are able to discern three points: (1) Guirguis objects to the award of retroactive support; (2) support should be reduced because after entry of the judgment, he lost his job; and (3) he should be given more “custody time” because he is now unemployed and has more time available to spend with the child. Because the latter two points pertain to matters occurring post-judgment, and we have stricken any documents concerning those matters, we need not discuss them further.
The judgment must be affirmed because Guirguis has failed to carry his appellate burden. A trial court’s order is presumed correct, and the appellant bears the burden of establishing error. (County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591.) This burden to establish error includes presentation of a record on appeal that is sufficient to support the argument the trial court erred. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574–575.) The appellant has the further duty to present arguments supported by record citations and legal authority—the appellate court is not required to discuss or consider points that are not adequately presented. (Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979.) “Pro. per. litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) Guirguis has not provided us with an adequate record or presented any coherent legal analysis of his claims.
Furthermore, this may properly be construed as a judgment roll appeal. The only record we have before us is the judgment itself, and there is no reporter’s transcript. Accordingly, we conclusively presume the evidence supports the judgment and are limited to determining whether any error “appears on the face of the record.” (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.) No error appears on the face of the judgment. To the extent Guirguis challenges the award of support retroactively, that was well within the court’s authority. (Fam. Code, § 4009 [court may order child support retroactive to date of filing of petition].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The respondent is awarded its costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., BEDSWORTH, J.