Opinion
23CA0690
05-23-2024
In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning C.H.D., a Child, and Concerning Conteh M. Davis, Appellant, and Angela Vendora Sims, Appellee.
Conteh M. Davis, Pro Se Angela Vendora Sims, Pro Se
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
City and County of Denver District Court No. 22DR197 Honorable Jane A. Tidball, Judge
Conteh M. Davis, Pro Se
Angela Vendora Sims, Pro Se
Yun and Moultrie, JJ., concur
OPINION
DUNN JUDGE
¶ 1 Conteh M. Davis (father), appearing pro se, appeals the district court's judgment allocating parental responsibilities. We affirm.
I. Background
¶ 2 Father and Angela Sims (mother) are the parents of C.H.D. (child). In January 2022, father petitioned for an allocation of parental responsibilities. In March 2023, a child and family investigator (CFI) issued a report finding evidence of domestic abuse and child abuse. The CFI recommended (1) phasing in father's parenting time from the existing one night per week to three nights per week as he meets therapy benchmarks and (2) granting mother sole decision-making responsibility.
¶ 3 Not long after, the district court held a permanent orders hearing, at which father was represented by counsel. After the hearing, the court entered a written order. As relevant here, the court
• adopted the CFI's recommended parenting plan, finding it was in the child's best interests;
• ordered that mother have sole decision-making responsibility; and
• imputed to father a full-time minimum wage income and adopted father's proposed support order obligating him to pay mother $403.69 per month, plus $378.77 each month toward arrearages from the previous year.
II. Analysis
¶ 4 Father appeals the order allocating parental responsibilities and asks us to "revoke" the child support order.
¶ 5 We will not disturb parenting time and child support orders absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Badawiyeh, 2023 COA 4, ¶ 9 (parenting time); In re Marriage of Davis, 252 P.3d 530, 533 (Colo.App. 2011) (child support). An abuse of discretion occurs when a ruling is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, or if it misapplies the law. Badawiyeh, ¶ 9.
¶ 6 As best we can tell, father contends that the order allocating parental rights violates his constitutional right to parent, the court "act[ed] out of bias toward the CFI's insufficient findings," and the court didn't consider his testimony. And he says the erroneous parenting time order requires that we "revoke" the child support order.
¶ 7 We are unable to review father's contentions for a couple of reasons. First, though the court made findings of fact at the permanent orders hearing and incorporated those findings into its written order, the transcript is not in the appellate record. It is the appellant's responsibility to "include in the record transcripts of all proceedings necessary for considering and deciding the issues on appeal," C.A.R. 10(d)(3), and civil litigants aren't entitled to transcripts at state expense, see Almarez v. Carpenter, 173 Colo. 284, 289, 477 P.2d 792, 794 (1970). Absent a complete record, we "must presume that the record supports the judgment." In re Marriage of Dean, 2017 COA 51, ¶ 13; see also In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning B.R.D., 2012 COA 63, ¶ 15 (we will uphold the court's decision allocating parental responsibilities when it has record support).
¶ 8 And second, father's brief doesn't cite to the record or develop any legally supported argument explaining how the district court abused its discretion. See C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B). Thus, even if we had the hearing transcript, we wouldn't be able to address father's assertions. See In re Marriage of Zander, 2019 COA 149, ¶ 27 (appellate court won't consider arguments not supported by legal authority or legal analysis), aff'd, 2021 CO 12.
¶ 9 Finally, we recognize that father is self-represented and sympathize with the many challenges that presents in litigating his claims. But pro se parties are subject to the same laws and procedural rules that apply to attorneys. See Cornelius v. River Ridge Ranch Landowners Ass'n, 202 P.3d 564, 572 (Colo. 2009).
III. Disposition
¶ 10 The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE YUN and JUDGE MOULTRIE concur.