Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. FCS08343385
NEEDHAM, J.
Marc D. (father) appeals from an order confirming the registration of a 1994 Swiss child support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). (Fam. Code, § 4900 et seq.) He argues that the agreement is invalid and should not be enforced because it was procured through fraud by his child’s mother, real party in interest Beatrice D. (mother). We affirm the judgment confirming the registration of the order.
Statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise indicated.
I. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The UIFSA, codified in California at section 4900 et seq., has been adopted by all 50 states and governs the procedures for establishing, enforcing and modifying child support orders issued by a sister state or a qualifying foreign country. (Willmer v. Willmer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 951, 956, 958 (Willmer); de Leon v. Jenkins (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 118, 124 (de Leon).) As enacted in California, an out-of-state support order may be registered “for enforcement.” (§ 4950.) Once registered, the order “ ‘is enforceable in the same manner and is subject to the same procedures as an order issued by a tribunal of this state, ’ but may not, absent certain limited circumstances not pertinent here, be modified by the California court.” (de Leon, at p. 124; § 4952.) The United States and Switzerland have entered into an agreement for the recognition and enforcement of support orders. (See 42 U.S.C. § 659a.)
When an out-of-state support order is registered in California, the person obliged to pay support must be notified and may request a hearing to contest registration within 20 days. (§ 4954, subds. (a) & (b).) Section 4956, subdivision (a) provides that the obligor may challenge the registration of the support order on specified grounds, including, “(2) The order was obtained by fraud.” The party challenging registration has the burden of proof. (§ 4956, subd. (a); Willmer, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 958.)
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Father and mother are the parents of a daughter, V., born in Switzerland on in May 1994. Mother resides in Switzerland with V., while father resides in California. Father and mother never married.
Before V. was born, father traveled to Berne, Switzerland and signed papers regarding paternity and support. On January 21, 1994, he signed the Register of Recognitions, in which he acknowledged his paternity of the child mother was expecting. On the same date, he signed a maintenance agreement calling for him to pay child support through V.’s 20th year, which was approved by the Berne Guardianship Commission on May 31, 1994, after V.’s birth. The agreement was written in German.
Father did not make payments under the support agreement and the authorities in Switzerland made advance support payments to mother between 1995 and January 2008, totaling more than 117, 000 Swiss francs. On August 18, 2008, respondent San Francisco County Department of Child Support Services (Department) filed a notice of registration of the Swiss child support order in the San Francisco County Superior Court, apparently at the instigation of the Swiss authorities.
Father requested a hearing, claiming that the Swiss support order should not be enforced because Switzerland had lacked personal jurisdiction over him, the support agreement had been obtained by fraud, and some or all of the arrears were unenforceable. As relevant to this appeal, his supporting declarations alleged that the papers he signed in Switzerland were prepared only in German, which he did not speak; that mother misled him to believe he would not have to pay anything; that she told father the paperwork would simply allow her to collect government benefits for V. in the event of his death; and that the Swiss authorities had been grossly negligent because they had failed to provide him with an English interpreter. Father claimed that he had signed all of the papers without obtaining a proper translation, and that the day after he signed them, mother advised him he would have no rights with respect to the child.
In response to these allegations, the Department presented evidence that father and mother had executed a child support agreement with the help of one Ernst Hunkeler, a “paternity executive” who worked for the local government in Switzerland. An interpreter (Ms. Jutzi) had been present when the documents were signed. Father, though having no documentation of his income, used the translator to describe his financial situation to Hunkeler in some detail. Father and mother agreed to staggered levels of support payments in specified amounts. Hunkeler’s report regarding the case indicated that father and mother had been advised about the formulation of the support agreement and that it had been difficult to determine the level of support because father was self-employed as a food concessioner and his income was relatively low due to the then-current economic recession.
After a hearing at which the parties agreed to treat all of the documents and declarations filed by father as evidence, the court issued an order confirming the registration of the support order. It found that father had failed to carry his burden of proving the type of fraud that would undermine the registration order: “The court finds that the fraud in this case, even assuming mother’s conduct was as he described, was intrinsic, not extrinsic. Father continually points to the conduct of the mother here, placing all reliance on her – instead of the officials, charged with assisting parents in stepping up to recognize their responsibilities for a child they conceived, who were there to explain the documents he was given to sign – indeed, the only ones with the authority to explain them. Father never told the Swiss officials he did not understand what he was signing, nor did he contact the Swiss authorities as soon as he was told by mother that he no longer had any rights. Indeed, father admits that mother told him the ‘day after signing’ that he had no rights.... At that point, within one day, things were not as he understood them; yet, inexplicably, father did not go right back to the Swiss officials where he had just signed the documents. Moreover, the evidence provided by [the Department] as to the interview given by father regarding his financial situation to the Swiss officials, leads this court to believe that he understood more than what he now claims.”
III. DISCUSSION
Father, who is representing himself on appeal, argues that he is not bound by the terms of the child support agreement he signed in 1994 because he did not understand its terms and could not legally consent to them. He cites a number of Civil Code provisions relating to the consent required for a contract to be effective: section 1550 [contract requires consent], section 1565 [consent must be free, mutual, and communicated by each to the other], section 1577 [defining mistake of fact that may negate consent], section 1579 [mistake of foreign law is mistake of fact] and section 1580 [consent not mutual if parties do not agree to same thing].) As the Department correctly notes, father did not challenge the support agreement on contractual grounds when he requested a hearing in the trial court. Subject to exceptions not relevant here, an appellate court generally will not consider a theory raised for the first time on appeal. (RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1518.)
In a section of his brief entitled, “Clarification of Document, ” father suggests that there was no evidence the Swiss documents presented by the Department were genuine. He did not object on this ground in the trial court and has forfeited his claim. (Evid. Code, § 353; Platzer v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1260-1261.)
Father also complains that the Swiss authorities did not give him adequate notice of hearings relating to a 2007 order signed by the Municipal President of Berne, Switzerland, which authorized collection efforts under the support agreement between father and mother. There being no information in the appellate record regarding the notice (or lack thereof) accorded to father, he has failed to carry his burden of providing a record adequate to support his claim. (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 (Nielson); Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200.) In any event, father has not established that the alleged lack of notice of the 2007 proceedings in Switzerland prejudiced his current efforts to oppose registration of the support order in California.
Finally, father claims that mother committed fraud and exercised undue influence when she persuaded him to sign a support agreement in the German language without advising him of its actual contents. Fraud is a basis for setting aside a settlement agreement that has been reduced to a judgment only when the alleged fraud is extrinsic rather than intrinsic. (In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1061, 1068, 1069-1070 (Stevenot); see also § 2122, subd. (a) [defining the fraud necessary to set aside a family law judgment as “[a]ctual fraud where the defrauded party was kept in ignorance or in some other manner was fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding”].) Although we are dealing here with a party’s efforts to oppose registration of an out-of-state support order, rather than a direct attack upon the out-of-state judgment, we agree with the trial court that the same rule applies and that extrinsic fraud must be demonstrated for father to prevail on his claim.
“Fraud is extrinsic where the defrauded party was deprived of the opportunity to present his or her claim or defense to the court, that is, where he or she was kept in ignorance or in some other manner, other than from his or her own conduct, fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding.” (Stevenot, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068.) Fraud is intrinsic “if a party has been given notice of the action and has not been prevented from participating therein, that is, if he or she had the opportunity to present his or her case and to protect himself or herself from any mistake or fraud of his or her adversary, but unreasonably neglected to do so.” (Id. at p. 1069.)
The fraud in this case, if any, was intrinsic rather than extrinsic. Father was not prevented from participating in the proceedings in Switzerland that led to the child support agreement. He claims he was misled by mother regarding the terms of the agreement, but he could have remedied this situation by refusing to sign until the document had been adequately translated for him. Though he complains the Swiss authorities failed to apprise him of the agreement’s contents, he was in the best position to know whether he understood what he was signing and to insist on a more proficient interpreter if he was dissatisfied with the skills of the person acting in that capacity. (See Geranghadr v. Entagh (Or. 2003) 189 Or.App. 567, 571-572 [77 P.3d 323, 325-326 [fraudulently filing an incorrect translation of an arbitration award is only intrinsic fraud and provides no basis for setting aside the judgment based on that award].)
Even if we assume that mother’s acts amounted to extrinsic fraud, the trial court indicated in its written ruling that it did not find credible father’s claim that he did not understand what he was signing: “[T]he evidence provided by [the Department] as to the interview given by father regarding his financial situation to the Swiss officials, leads this court to believe that he understood more than what he now claims.” The court reasonably inferred that father would not have provided such extensive information regarding his finances had he not understood that child support was being determined.
“Where, as here, the judgment is against the party who has the burden of proof, it is almost impossible for him to prevail on appeal by arguing the evidence compels a judgment in his favor. That is because unless the trial court makes specific findings of fact in favor of the losing plaintiff, we presume the trial court found plaintiff’s evidence lacks sufficient weight and credibility to carry the burden of proof. [Citations.] We have no power on appeal to judge the credibility of witnesses or to reweigh the evidence.” (Bookout v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1486.)
IV. DISPOSITION
The order confirming registration of the Swiss child support order is affirmed. Respondent shall recover costs on appeal.
We concur. JONES, P. J., SIMONS, J.