Opinion
A161225
06-11-2021
In re the Marriage of ITTAI BAREKET and NADYA MCCANN. ITTAI BAREKET, Respondent, v. NADYA MCCANN, Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 19FAM00112A
We resolve the appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1 (1), (2).
TUCHER, J.
Appellant Nadya McCann has appealed a temporary restraining order protecting respondent Ittai Bareket and their two children. The order was granted on October 14, 2020 and expired on April 13, 2021, shortly after briefing in this appeal was complete.
Mootness
This court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether we could still grant effective relief to appellant after the temporary restraining order expired or whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot. After we granted her request for an extension of time, McCann submitted a document entitled “My Requests for Relief and Reparations, ” which we treat as her response. She subsequently filed an “Amended Information” to her supplemental brief, in which she averred that a hearing on whether to extend the restraining order would take place on June 9, 2021. Bareket submitted no response to our request.
An appeal is moot and will be dismissed when our decision “ ‘can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief.' ” (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214.) The order under appeal has already expired. However, out of caution in light of McCann's representation that Bareket is seeking to extend the order, we will consider the merits of her appeal.
Merits of the Appeal
McCann challenges the restraining order on multiple grounds, including that she never harassed Bareket, that her communications with the children were appropriate, that the trial court's concerns about her failure to follow earlier orders regarding supervised visits and mental health care and about her use of a “London dialect” in messages to her children were unfounded, and that she was unable to hear the proceedings during the October 14, 2020 hearing and was not offered hearing devices.
On appeal, we presume the trial court's judgment is correct. (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.) The appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record to assess error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140.) Points not supported by appropriate citations to the record may be treated as forfeited (Nielsen, at p. 324), as may points unsupported by reasoned argument and citations to authority (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52).
After Bareket was sworn in at the hearing, the trial court stated it had reviewed his request for a restraining order in which he alleged McCann had not had contact with the children, that she had severe mental health issues, and that she called leaving numerous messages in a British voice, causing the children concern. The court asked if everything Bareket alleged was true, and Bareket testified that it was. No other testimony was offered. At the conclusion of the hearing, after counsel presented argument, the court found that McCann was harassing the children and Bareket and disturbing their peace, and accordingly it found cause to grant the restraining order.
The record before us provides no grounds to disturb these findings. It includes neither Bareket's request for a restraining order, with the allegations against McCann that he incorporated by reference into his hearing testimony, nor any evidence calling this testimony into question. McCann attaches to her briefs a number of exhibits upon which she relies to argue she is psychologically healthy and an excellent mother. But there is no indication these documents were before the trial court when it made its order, so we do not consider them. (See Cypress Security, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1014.)
McCann contends procedural error occurred because she was not provided with hearing devices. Nothing in the record suggests there was error. At the beginning of the hearing, the court asked if the parties were prepared to proceed, and McCann's attorney noted that McCann was slightly hard of hearing and was having difficulty. The court said, “Okay. Are you prepared to proceed?” and the reporter's transcript indicates McCann replied, “Yes.” She did not request assistive devices. McCann contends the transcript of the hearing is inaccurate, but nothing in the record supports this contention. There is no basis to conclude the court erred in proceeding with the hearing without providing additional assistance.
Finally, McCann argues she was misled by her attorney when she agreed to orders requiring her to have supervised visits and see a psychiatrist. Those orders are not before us and we do not consider them.
In the circumstances, we must reject McCann's challenges to the restraining order.
Other Requests
On April 11, 12, and 26, 2021 and May 25, 2021, and in her briefs on appeal, McCann has made a variety of requests for sanctions and for other relief. Most of these requests fall outside the scope of the order under appeal and are not properly before us. On April 10 and 11, 2021, she submitted requests for an expedited decision. McCann's requests are all denied.
In his respondent's brief, Bareket asks for sanctions pursuant to section 128.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His request is denied.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Bareket shall recover his costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: POLLAK, P. J., BROWN, J.