Opinion
B232626
01-24-2012
MARIO R., Petitioner and Appellant, v. MARGARITA W., Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BF022095)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elizabeth R. Feffer, Judge. Affirmed.
Mario R., in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal from an order modifying child support. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Mario's opening brief includes no citations to the record and discusses matters not found in the record. (See CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 539, fn. 1 [a reviewing court may not give any consideration to alleged facts outside the record on appeal].) However, as designated, the record is comprised only of a slim clerk's transcript (primarily minute orders), with the proceedings summarized here.
On July 20, 2009, with no opposition and no appearance from Margarita W., the trial court granted Mario R.'s order to show cause for modification of child support, modifying Mario's child support payment for his son J.R. (then 14) to $318 per month.
We use the first names of the parties for ease of reference, intending no disrespect; we use initials instead of the parties' last names because this matter originated as a paternity case.
On October 14, 2009, with no opposition and no appearance from Mario, the trial court heard and granted Margarita's motion to vacate orders of July 20, 2009, and reserved jurisdiction over the amount of child support. Mario's order to show cause for modification of child support was set for hearing on January 4, 2010. In the meantime, each party was ordered to serve and file an income and expense declaration, completing all required attachments by December 28, 2009.
On August 9, 2010, both Mario (in pro per) and Margarita (represented by counsel) appeared for trial, and both were sworn and testified. The trial court adopted the Conciliation Court Agreement and Stipulated Order re: Custody signed and filed that date and reserved jurisdiction over the issue of child support. Margarita's counsel was directed to prepare a proposed judgment on parentage, custody and support, with an order to show cause re: entry of judgment on parentage set for October 20, 2010. "Each party may file an Order to Show Cause re: Support and set it on [the] date and time indicated above. Parties are to comply with service and notice requirements pursuant to [s]ection 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
On its own motion, the court also set an order to show cause re: sanctions on the October 20 hearing date to address "why [Mario] should not pay the amount of $1,000 to the Court and $1,000 to [Margarita] for failure to comply with the Court's Trial Orders of January 4, 2010 including but not limited to filing an updated Income and Expense Declaration. [¶] Responsive Declaration to the Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions [is] to be filed and served by October 8, 2010. [¶] The Order to Show Cause [re:] Sanctions will be discharged if a full Judgment is filed and entered prior to the above indicated date. [¶] [Margarita's counsel] is ordered to prepare an Order After Hearing, submit[ting] it to [Mario] for approval as to form and content prior to submitting [it] to [the] court for signature and filing."
Mario's designated record on appeal includes no minute order or other documentation of the January 4, 2010, hearing date.
On October 20, 2010, Mario appeared in pro per and Margarita appeared through her counsel. After hearing and argument, the trial court found "[Mario had] failed to comply with the Court's Trial Orders [and] also failed to file and serve [a] current Income and Expense Declaration. [¶] The Court likewise finds that [Mario] failed to meet the October 8, 2010 deadline to file a Responsive Declaration to the Order to Show Cause re Sanctions. Further findings of the Court are more fully reflected in the official notes of the Court Reporter.[] [¶] The Order to Show Cause re Sanctions as noticed on August 9, 2010 is granted. [¶] [Mario] is ordered to pay to [Margarita] the amount of $1,000 [in monthly $100 installments] . . . . [Mario] is likewise ordered to pay $250 [in monthly $25 installments commencing in June 2011]." The court reserved jurisdiction over the issue of child support and continued the order to show cause re entry of judgment to November 18, 2011.
Mario did not include a reporter's transcript in the record on appeal.
On March 23, 2011, the trial court adopted the Judgment on Paternity signed, filed and entered that date, finding Mario and Margarita to be the parents of J.R. The trial court also heard Mario's order to show cause for modification of child support (filed December 20, 2010, and continued from January 31, 2011). Mario appeared in pro per, and Margarita who resides in Virginia appeared via Court Call (represented by counsel). The parties were "ordered to meet and confer off the record on the financial issues." Then the order to show cause was recalled, argued and granted. "The Court makes the following child support order pursuant to the DissoMaster Printout filed this date and incorporated herein: Respondent [sic] is ordered to pay the Petitioner [sic] as and for child support for the minor child J[.]R[.] . . . the sum of $613 per month, payable one-half on the 1st and one-half on the 15th of each month, retroactive to March 1, 2011, and continuing in like manner until the minor for whom support is paid reaches the age of 18, or 19 if a full-time student and not self-supporting, dies, marries, becomes emancipated, or further order of the Court. [¶] Counsel for Respondent is ordered to prepare an Order After Hearing, submit it to opposing party for approval as to form and content prior to submitting to court for signature and filing."
Mario filed a notice of appeal on April 22, 2011, marking a box indicating he was appealing from a "Judgment after court trial," with the trial court's March 23, 2011 minute order attached. On June 20, 2011, this court's administrative presiding justice advised Mario the March 23, 2011 minute order is not an appealable order. Therefore, Margarita was ordered to serve and file a conformed copy of the judgment on paternity signed and filed on March 23, 2011, and to prepare, serve and file an order after judgment on child support in accordance with the court's March 23, 2011 order, with Mario advised noncompliance would result in dismissal of his appeal.
On August 22, 2011, Margarita's counsel submitted a document entitled "Findings and Order after Hearing," bearing the trial court's signature stamp, and reciting the court's orders of March 23, 2011, as summarized above, but confirming the trial court ordered Mario to pay Margarita the monthly $613 amount.
Mario acknowledges in his opening brief that his son lives with Margarita in Virginia.
DISCUSSION
Mario says the trial court erred in ordering him to pay child support to Margarita in the amount of $613 per month for two reasons. First, he says, the DissoMaster generated by the trial court shows him as a single father, but he is legally married and has two young children from his new marriage, who were one and four years of age at the time of the hearing, but no hardship allowance was included. This, he says, amounts to "plain error." Second, Mario argues, the DissoMaster generated by the trial court did not use the income figures he says he provided in the form of income receipts from a receipt book and a log of his daily income, and it is "an abuse of discretion for the court to impute earning capacity to a parent[] without addressing whether the parent has the ability to work, or eligible assets that can be used for support."
According to Mario (but without any citation to or evidence in the record), he had been paying child support in the amount of $800 between August 2001 and February 2006, but suffered a "drastic change" beginning in 2006 as the "new age of technology has diminished his earning capacity" as a paralegal and tax preparer since 1990.
--------
The trial "court's judgment is presumed to be correct, and it is appellant's burden to affirmatively show error. [Citation.] To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error." (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408, italics added, citations omitted.) Here, there is nothing in the record to substantiate Mario's claims of error in the trial court's calculation of (reduced) child support. (Ibid.)We may not consider alleged facts that are outside the record on appeal. (CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 539, fn. 1; McOwen v. Grossman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 937, 947 ["Statements of fact that are not supported by references to the record are disregarded by the reviewing court"].) Because Mario's claims are unsupported by factual or legal analysis (Placer County Local Agency Formation Com. v. Nevada County Local Agency Formation Com. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 793, 814), he has failed to demonstrate error in the trial court's order.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Mario is to bear his own costs of appeal.
WOODS , J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
ZELON, J.