From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Child Support Servs. v. Lule

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Apr 24, 2018
C084759 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2018)

Opinion

C084759

04-24-2018

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCOS LULE, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 10FS09518)

Appellant Marcos Lule (father) and Cristina Deltoro (mother) have two children together. Father is serving a 12-year sentence in state prison. Father moved the trial court for "reasonable" visitation with the parties' children while he is incarcerated. The parties subsequently participated in child custody recommending counseling with Family Court Services. Family Court Services recommended mother be granted sole legal and physical custody of the children. Family Court Services also recommended that at or about the time father is to be released from prison, he and the children should participate in "reconnection therapy" before father begins to exercise his parenting time. Following a hearing on father's motion, the trial court adopted the recommendation.

Father appeals from that order. The record on appeal does not include a reporter's transcript.

" 'The standard of appellate review of custody and visitation orders is the deferential abuse of discretion test.' [Citation.] Under this test, we must uphold the trial court 'ruling if it is correct on any basis, regardless of whether such basis was actually invoked.' " (Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255.)

It is a fundamental proposition that a judgment or order is presumed correct on appeal. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) It is the burden of a party challenging a judgment on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.)

Father has not provided any reporter's transcript of the proceedings. In the absence of a reporter's transcript or other record of the oral proceedings in the trial court, the appeal is treated on the judgment roll. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083.) We therefore treat this as an appeal "on the judgment roll," to which the following rules apply: " ' Error must be affirmatively shown by the record and will not be presumed on appeal [citation]; the validity of the judgment on its face may be determined by looking only to the matters constituting part of the judgment roll [citation]; where no error appears on the face of a judgment roll record, all intendments and presumptions must be in support of the judgment [citations]; the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open to consideration by a reviewing court [citation]; and any condition of facts consistent with the validity of the judgment will be presumed to have existed rather than one which would defeat it [citation].' " (Ford v. State of California (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 507, 514; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.) Although father is representing himself in propria persona, he is not exempt from the rules governing appeals. A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants having attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)

Father raises several claims on appeal. First, he claims he was precluded from participating in the hearing on his motion for visitation. Father fails to cite to any evidence in the record to support this claim. That claim is forfeited. (See Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785 (Badie); see also Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116; see also Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.)

Father also claims the trial court's order granting mother sole legal and physical custody of their children violates his First Amendment Right to associate with his children. Further, father "does not agree" the trial court can order him to "participate in 'reconnection therapy' as a condition of seeing his children." Father fails to support either claim with any citation to relevant legal authority. Accordingly, these claims also are forfeited. (Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113; Badie, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 784-785.)

Finally, father contends the court's order is not supported by evidence. In support of his contention, father argues he is not an "unfit parent," that there is "no evidence that he needs therapy, no evidence that he has abused, used, or treated his children badly." Without a reporter's transcript of the relevant hearing, however, we must presume the court made sufficient findings to support its decision. That is, we must presume the court found that giving mother sole legal and physical custody of the minors was in the minors' best interest. Furthermore, we must conclusively presume the evidence was sufficient to sustain the court's findings. (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) On the face of this record, we find no error; we must affirm the trial court's decision.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/_________

RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
BUTZ, Acting P. J. /S/_________
HOCH, J.


Summaries of

Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Child Support Servs. v. Lule

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Apr 24, 2018
C084759 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2018)
Case details for

Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Child Support Servs. v. Lule

Case Details

Full title:SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Plaintiff and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

Date published: Apr 24, 2018

Citations

C084759 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2018)