Opinion
A149116
05-31-2018
RADIAH SIMONE FORT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRED JONES, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HF16818286)
Radiah Simone Fort appeals from the denial of her request for a domestic violence restraining order. Because she has not met her burden to show error, we shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2016, Fort filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against her ex-boyfriend Fred Jones. In her request, she stated that Jones had abused her on three occasions, most recently in April or May of 2015, when he "got upset and used physical force by touching [her] face and tugging on it at one of [her] theater performances." The second most recent incident of abuse occurred in August 2014, when Jones "attempted to have a shoving match with [her] in his vehicle." She was unsure of the date of the third incident, during which Jones threw her down on the floor while he was on the phone.
The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing for later that month, which was continued to July 2016 at Fort's request. Fort and Jones appeared at the hearing, representing themselves. Each of them testified, and the court then denied Fort's request for order. According to Fort, the trial court denied the request because Jones and Fort had no contact in the year before the hearing, and Jones had made no attempts to contact Fort during that time.
Fort timely appealed. Jones did not file a respondent's brief, and oral argument was waived. Therefore, we shall decide the appeal on the record and Fort's opening brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)
DISCUSSION
We review the trial court's grant or denial of a request for a domestic violence restraining order for abuse of discretion. (S.M. v. E.P. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1264-1265.)
Before we turn to the specifics of Fort's appeal, we summarize relevant principles of appellate practice. Most fundamentally, a judgment or order challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) "All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent," and it is the appellant's burden to affirmatively demonstrate error (ibid.), even in the absence of a brief from respondent. (Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1077-1078.) This means that Fort, as appellant, must provide this court an adequate record for review, and failure to do so requires us to resolve issues against her. (Oliveira v. Kiesler (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1362.) In addition, Fort must "cite the particular portion of the record supporting each assertion made. It should be apparent that a reviewing court has no duty to search through the record to find evidence in support of a party's position." (Williams v. Williams (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 560, 565.) Furthermore, Fort must present reasoned argument and legal authority to support her contentions, or we may treat those contentions as forfeited. (Berger v. California Insurance Guarantee Assn. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1007.)
These principles apply not only to appeals where parties are represented by counsel, but also to appeals where parties represent themselves, as Fort does here. (See Stokes v. Henson (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 187, 198 [self-represented party is entitled to the same consideration as other litigants and attorneys, but not more], citing Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638.)
Fort has not shown us that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request. Her attempt to do so was hindered in the first place by her election to proceed with her appeal without any record of the oral proceedings in the superior court. In the absence of a reporter's transcript we " 'have no way of knowing . . . what grounds were advanced, what arguments were made and what facts may have been admitted, mutually assumed or judicially noticed at the hearing. In such a case, no abuse of discretion can be found except on the basis of speculation.' " (Snell v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 44, 49.) The record tells us nothing about what happened at the hearing where Fort's request for order was denied, except that Fort and Jones testified.
Furthermore, Fort fails to provide any citations to the record to support her account of the facts of the case, and her argument does not cite any legal authority that pertains to the grant or denial of a request for a domestic violence restraining order.
Because we have no basis to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Fort's request for order, we must affirm.
DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
/s/_________
Miller, J. We concur: /s/_________
Kline, P.J. /s/_________
Richman, J.