Opinion
A148018
03-17-2017
R.M., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. M.R. et al., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SFL-57853) MEMORANDUM OPINION
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Rules of Court, Standard 8.1, which provides that a memorandum opinion is appropriate when an appeal "rais[es] factual issues that are determined by the substantial evidence rule."
Plaintiff R.M. (father) appeals from an order allowing his child to travel to Mexico with the child's mother, defendant M.R. (mother), for a family visit. Father contends the court disregarded evidence that the trip would endanger his child's safety. We shall affirm the order.
At the outset, we note that we would probably be justified in dismissing the appeal both because of father's failure to comply with applicable rules of court and because the appeal appears to be moot. The California Rules of Court specify that litigants must support any reference to the record in a brief by a citation to the record and must summarize the significant facts limited to matters in the appellate record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) & (a)(2)(C).) While father's opening brief contains a lengthy statement of facts, he fails to offer a single citation to the record to support his factual recitation. Moreover, most of the facts offered by father do not appear to have any bearing upon our review of the challenged order and are not supported by the limited record before this court. " 'The appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error.' [Citation.] Thus, '[i]f a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, . . . the argument [will be] deemed to have been waived.' " (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.) The fact that father is representing himself in propria persona on appeal does not relieve him of the obligation to comply with applicable rules. (Id. at pp. 1246-1247.) Because father has offered no record citations to support his arguments, we could consider his arguments on appeal waived.
In the court below, and on appeal, father describes himself as proceeding in this matter sui juris, and he seems to believe that by virtue of this status he cannot be characterized as a pro se or in propria persona litigant. He is mistaken. Sui juris simply refers to a person who is "of full age and capacity" and thus does not require a guardian ad litem or other representative to act on his or her behalf, such as in the case of a minor or an incapacitated adult. (See Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) p. 1475, col. 2.) --------
Further, it is unclear whether there is still any pending controversy that requires resolution by appeal. The challenged order allowed mother to take the child with her to Mexico last summer for a vacation of up to three weeks. In his opening brief, father claims (without citation to any supporting documentation) that mother decided not to travel after all. In either case, the appeal would be technically moot and subject to dismissal because this court could offer no effective relief to father. (See Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479.) In spite of the fact the appeal may be moot, we shall exercise our discretion to consider the appeal on its merits both to avoid any suggestion the appeal be meritorious but for its procedural deficiencies, and because the circumstances giving rise to the appeal may recur—i.e., mother may again seek to travel to Mexico with the child for a family visit.
Based upon our review of the trial court's register of actions, the action below began in 2012, when father filed a petition to establish a parental relationship with the child and mother sought a domestic violence restraining order. The court awarded joint custody of the child to mother and father at the time. Subsequent court proceedings addressed issues such as visitation, custody arrangements, child support, and health care for the child.
As relevant here, in March 2016 mother sought an order from the court permitting her to travel to Michoacan, Mexico with the child in the summer to visit extended family. She stated that father had refused to cooperate in obtaining a passport for the child or in granting permission for the child to travel. She offered to give "makeup time" to father to compensate for the time the child would spend with her in Mexico.
Father opposed the travel request. He claimed the area in Mexico where mother intended to take the child is a "highly volatile area" due to the presence of drug cartels. He also objected that the timing of the travel request was not good because the child was transitioning to a 50/50 custody arrangement and it would impede the progress that had been made in the case.
In a response to father's written objections, the child's court-appointed counsel noted that the area in Mexico where mother intended to take the child was distant from areas where travel was discouraged due to the presence of criminal cartels. Counsel also rejected any suggestion that a short vacation to visit "doting relatives" would negatively affect either the child or the coparenting relationship.
At the hearing to consider the travel request, the court noted that Michoacan, Mexico was not on the recent "do not travel" list compiled by the U.S. government and that "there's no other evidence to the contrary with regard to the Federal Government's assessment" of the travel threat. While the court acknowledged that travel to Mexico may be a "legitimate concern by any parent," it found based upon the evidence before it that traveling to Michoacan did not present a danger at that time. Following the hearing, the court granted mother's travel request by written order filed on March 30, 2016. The order allowed mother to take the child on a 2016 summer vacation of up to three weeks to Michoacan, Mexico. Father was ordered to sign any documents necessary for the requested travel, including a passport application for his child. Father timely appealed the order.
In his opening brief on appeal, father's argument consists of the following, single sentence: "I [R.M] contest the abuse of the court by denying me my rights to due process and failing to make take [sic] the burden of proof be taken on by these lawyers who accuse me of parental alienation while not upholding their responsibilities to ensure my child's safety when I have presented them with credible evidence[.]"
Our review of an order such as the one here is governed by the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (Cf. In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32.) We consider "whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the order in question advanced the 'best interest' of the child." (Ibid.) As father acknowledges, to the extent the appeal turns on any factual disputes, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review in which " ' "our function is limited to a determination whether substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion reached by the trial court . . . .' " " (In re Adoption of Allison C. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1010.) It is not our role to reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility. (In re Marriage of Jill and Victor D. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 491, 503.)
Father's appeal turns exclusively on his claim that the trial court ignored "credible evidence" of the threat to his child's safety in allowing the child to travel to Mexico with mother. Although there was conflicting evidence on this issue, the record contains substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that travel to Michoacan, Mexico would not present a danger to the child or threaten the parenting relationship. On this record, we discern no abuse of discretion in permitting mother to travel with the child to visit relatives in Mexico.
As a final matter, we note that father seeks various forms of relief in the conclusion to his opening brief that go well beyond the scope of this appeal, such as requests that the child's court-appointed attorney be removed, that the child's treatment with a particular therapist be ended, that mother be required to pay child support to him, and that the trial judge be recused from any further proceedings in this matter. Because this appeal is limited to an order permitting certain travel arrangements, the matters father raises in the conclusion of his opening brief are not properly before us.
DISPOSITION
The order of March 30, 2016, is affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
/s/_________
McGuiness, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Pollak, J. /s/_________
Siggins, J.