Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
City and County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. 375647
Ruvolo, P. J.
I. Introduction
In her handwritten brief, appellant Anna Karin Antonsson, acting in propria persona, argues that the trial court erred in refusing to order a child custody evaluation pursuant to Family Code section 3111, subdivision (a). As in her previous appeal, no basis exists for reversal because appellant fails to support her assertions of error with legal argument or analysis. Consequently, we affirm.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
We begin by noting that appellant has recently appeared before this court. In Kast v. Antonsson (A117115, Apr. 4, 2008 [nonpub. opn.] (Kast I)), we affirmed the trial court’s decision to award appellant’s former husband, John Kast, presumed father status with respect to appellant’s daughter under Family Code section 7611. We stated in Kast I that we were “compelled by law to affirm the trial court’s decision because of appellant’s failure to designate a record, identify any errors made by the trial court, and cite any law or authority supporting her allegations.” (Kast I at p. 1.)
The scanty and incomplete record before us establishes that appellant’s current appeal challenges the trial court’s denial of her request to order a child custody evaluation to determine the best interests of the child. The hearing on appellant’s request to order a child custody evaluation was held on January 31, 2008. Appellant was present at this hearing acting in propria persona. The court began the hearing by stressing the discretionary nature of the court’s obligation to order a child custody evaluation under Family Code section 3111. The court pointed out that “in this case, the Court has minor’s counsel who is opposing a custody evaluation for good reason. It seems as though the minor is doing very well currently in her school, in visiting with you, having contact with you . . . and . . . there’s nothing in the record that warrants this Court exercising its discretion to order a custody evaluation.” The court later issued a written order indicating that “[b]ased on the facts on the record, the Court denies [appellant’s] request for a custody evaluation.” On appeal, appellant asks this court to “take a closer look” at the trial court’s decision.
The reporter’s transcript of the hearing is virtually the only record filed with this court for review.
III. Discussion
Unfortunately, in briefing this most recent appeal, appellant repeats the same errors she made in briefing Kast I. Appellant has presented arguments unsupported by authority or citations to the record. When a party is challenging a judgment, that party has the burden of showing reversible error by appropriate reference to the record. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14(a).) Furthermore, where a brief asserts a point without supporting authorities, the reviewing court “ ‘may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.’ [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Schroeder (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1164.)
We remind appellant that under California law, “a litigant appearing in propria persona is generally held to the same restrictive rules and procedures as an attorney. . . .” (Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 93, 98; Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639.) Thus, appellant is not entitled to any special treatment because she is representing herself.
While appellant’s lack of legal acumen and insistence on proceeding in propria persona is regrettable, it is not a basis upon which an appellate court may reverse the judgment. Because appellant has once again failed to support her assertions of error with reasoned legal argument or analysis, no basis exists for reversal of the judgment.
IV. CONCLUSION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent.
We concur: Sepulveda, J., Rivera, J.