Marriage of Pallais CA1/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 8/2/23 Marriage of Pallais CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re the Marriage of CARLOS A.
PALLAIS and ALAYA PALLAIS-
PARISH.
CARLOS A. PALLAIS, A165281
Appellant, (Sonoma County
v. Super. Ct. No. SFL085566)
ALAYA PALLAIS-PARISH,
Respondent.
Carlos A. Pallais (father), in propria persona, appeals from the trial
court’s postjudgment order in his dissolution action against Alaya Pallais-
Parish (mother). The Sonoma County Superior Court awarded mother child
support and ordered coparent counseling, both of which father argues must
be stricken due to the trial court’s alleged failure to consider his inability to
pay and mother’s ability to pay. Father elected to proceed on appeal without
a record of the oral proceedings in the trial court. By filing his appeal
without a reporter’s transcript or equivalent substitute, father has provided
us with an inadequate record. Therefore, we are unable to conduct a
meaningful appellate review and reject each of father’s arguments.
Accordingly, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Our ability to understand fully the factual and procedural history of
this case is hampered because of the sparse record on appeal, consisting of
only father’s opening brief and a clerk’s transcript.1 The clerk’s transcript on
appeal is meager, containing only nine documents, including father’s income
and expense declaration. The record does not include a reporter’s transcript
or a respondent’s appendix, nor was a respondent’s brief filed. We therefore
summarize the factual and procedural history as best we can based on the
record before us.
Father is a server at a restaurant in Sonoma, and mother is
unemployed. They were married on December 30, 2015, and have one child.
They separated on March 18, 2018, and father filed a petition for dissolution
of marriage on March 11, 2020. An attorney briefly represented father from
the beginning of the proceedings in December 2020 until January 2021. An
attorney represented mother from September 2020 until April 2021, and both
parties appear to have continued since without legal representation.
The Sonoma County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS)
filed a motion to modify father’s monthly child support payment of $0 ordered
on April 1, 2021, to the guideline amount of $681 generated based on father’s
income and expense declaration of January 4, 2022. The trial court modified
the child support to $650 on April 19, 2022, deviating from the guideline
1 Father has also filed his brief with an “Exhibit A” attached to the end
of the brief, which appears to be his response to the motion for child support
at issue in this case. Father designated this document for inclusion in the
record on appeal, but it appears the clerk did not include it. Although it
would not impact the resolution of the issues on appeal in this case, for future
reference, father should have served and filed a notice in the superior court to
request preparation, certification, and transmission of the omitted document.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(b).)
2
calculation in the best interests of the child. The trial court also ordered that
father and mother share joint custody of the child and that both parties
participate in coparent counseling. Father filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Appellate courts review child support awards, including a
determination whether to grant or deny a request for modification of child
support, for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Hein (2020)
52 Cal.App.5th 519, 529 (Hein).) The abuse of discretion standard also
applies to an appellate court’s review of custody and visitation orders. (In re
Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32.)
“Generally, a trial court abuses its discretion if there is no reasonable
basis on which the court could conclude its decision advanced the best
interests of the child. [Citation.] ‘Under this test, we must uphold the trial
court[’s] “ruling if it is correct on any basis, regardless of whether such basis
was actually invoked.” ’ ” (Chalmers v. Hirschkop (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th
289, 299.) “When conducting an abuse of discretion review, appellate courts
consider (1) whether the trial court’s factual findings are supported by
substantial evidence, (2) whether the trial court followed applicable legal
principles, and (3) whether the trial court reasonably exercised its
discretionary authority—that is, whether any judge reasonably could have
made such an order.” (Hein, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 529; In re Marriage
of Morton (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1025, 1039.) “Child support awards are
highly regulated by the statewide uniform guideline ([Fam. Code,] § 4055)
and, as a result, the only discretion trial courts possess is the discretion
provided by statute or rule.” (Hein, at p. 529.)
3
B. Adequacy of Record
We must first address the inadequacy of the record on appeal, because
the deficiencies of this record necessarily limit the scope of our review. “[I]t is
settled that: ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All
intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to
which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not
only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the
constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court
(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) There is an “obligation as appellant to present a
complete record for appellate review, and in the absence of a required
reporter’s transcript and other documents, we presume the judgment is
correct.” (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.) “The effect
of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no
reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the
sufficiency of the evidence.” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992.)
It is also the appellant’s burden to include in the brief a summary of all
the evidence with citations to the record and argument in support of any
claim of error supported by citation to legal authority. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C).) These rules apply equally to litigants who choose to
represent themselves, and the failure to comply with any one of them may
result in the waiver of a claim of error, or a determination that the appellant
has failed to meet the burden to demonstrate error on appeal. (See Osgood v.
Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435.)
In order to evaluate father’s challenge to the lower court’s orders, we
require an adequate record on appeal. But as noted, father did not include a
reporter’s transcript; we have no information as to the oral proceedings,
declarations, or documentary evidence presented by him or by mother in open
4
court. In lieu of a reporter’s transcript, father could have provided an agreed
statement or a settled statement, but he did not submit any such alternative.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.134 & 8.137.) Nor does it appear any party
requested, or the court prepared, a statement of decision pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 632, which would have provided us with the trial
court’s reasoning and analysis on disputed issues. (City and County of San
Francisco v. H.H. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 531, 544.) Because there is no
statement of decision, we presume the trial court made all factual findings
necessary to support the order. (In re Marriage of McHugh (2014) 231
Cal.App.4th 1238, 1248.)
Moreover, father’s brief does not provide an adequate summary of the
procedural facts or of the evidence submitted by both parties related to the
request for modification of support, and it contains numerous assertions of
law and fact that are not supported by citations to authority or facts in the
record. We acknowledge that father is representing himself in this appeal
and has not had the formal legal training that would be beneficial in
advocating his position. However, the rules of civil procedure apply with
equal force to parties in propria persona as they do those represented by
attorneys. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985.)
As we will explain, these defects, combined with the presumptions in
favor of the judgment, lead us to conclude that father has failed to meet his
burden of demonstrating error.
First, father contends the trial court did not properly account for
mother’s income from all sources and, thus, erred in calculating the amount
of child support owed. Father claims that the trial court determined the child
support after disregarding evidence of mother’s alleged by-choice
unemployment and undisclosed financial support from her parents, and
5
failed to question mother about her income from all sources, whether she was
still enrolled in school, and how she was paying for private university
schooling. Father references the hearing that took place on April 19, 2022, at
which the trial court allegedly chose not to question mother. However, father
fails to cite to the record to support this contention, and thus we are unable to
meaningfully review this assertion. Moreover, because we do not have the
transcript from the hearing or a statement of decision, there is no basis to
know what happened, what evidence was presented, the reasons for the trial
court’s ruling, or whether the trial court abused its discretion.
Second, father argues that the trial court erred in calculating the child
support and ordering coparent counseling without acknowledging his
financial hardships. Father cites to exhibit A of his opening brief, his own
response to DCSS’s motion, in which he lists his expenses and claims a
negative disposable income. As noted previously, this document appears to
have been omitted from the clerk’s transcript on appeal. Even if father had
corrected the omission, however, and we considered his evidence, the lack of a
reporter’s transcript or statement of decision still prevents father from
showing an abuse of discretion. In the absence of an affirmative showing to
the contrary in the record, we must presume the trial court considered all of
the evidence, including father’s evidence, and found sufficient evidence to
support the child support calculation and coparent counseling order.
Finally, father argues that the trial court violated his constitutional
due process rights by entering judgment without accounting for mother’s
income and father’s economic disadvantages. Father devotes the majority of
this section of his brief to reiterating the same issues discussed earlier in his
brief, and claims that those issues constitute a violation of his right to
fairness and justice under the Fourteenth Amendment. This cursory
6
argument is unavailing because like the first two issues, it is unsupported by
references to the record and cites authorities without demonstrating the
relevance of the citations to his argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(B), (C); see Guthrey v. State of California (1998)
63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 [merely setting forth general legal principles
without specifically demonstrating how they establish error is insufficient to
raise a cognizable issue on appeal].) Moreover, without the transcript of the
hearing, we cannot assess whether father was deprived of due process or a
fair hearing.
In sum, father’s claims are forfeited because he has not supported them
with citations to the record or with any meaningful argument. Further,
because father has failed to provide an adequate record from which we may
evaluate his claims that the trial court erred in rendering its custody and
support determinations, we must resolve those claims against him.
III. DISPOSITION
The trial court’s orders are affirmed. The parties are to bear their own
costs on appeal.2
2 Because mother failed to file a respondent’s brief, we decline to award
her costs as the prevailing party. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
7
MARGULIES, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUMES, P. J.
BOWEN, J.*
A165281
In re Marriage of Pallais and Pallais-Parish

Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
8