Blake v. Lambright ( 2023 )

624
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted July 7, 2023, affirmed August 23, 2023
Autumn K. BLAKE,
fka Autumn K. Lambright,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
Alvin M. LAMBRIGHT,
Respondent-Appellant.
Polk County Circuit Court
14DR08971; A179534
Rafael A. Caso, Judge.
Alvin M. Lambright submitted the brief pro se.
No appearance for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
JOYCE, J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 327 Or App 624 (2023) 625
JOYCE, J.
Father appeals from a supplemental judgment
addressing custody, parenting time, and child support.
Mother sought to modify each, and the trial court denied her
motion to modify custody and parenting time, but modified
child support. As we understand father’s claims on appeal,
he argues that the court miscalculated child support and
that the supplemental judgment contains a typographical
error. We affirm.
As to father’s claim that the court miscalculated
child support, we note that the trial court held hearings over
the course of three days, but father has not designated the
transcript of those proceedings on appeal. Thus, we cannot
determine the basis of the trial court’s decision, or whether
evidence supports factual findings that the trial court used
to calculate child support. “An appellant bears the burden
of providing a record sufficient to demonstrate that error
occurred.” Ferguson v. Nelson, 216 Or App 541, 549, 174 P3d
620 (2007). If the record is insufficient, we may decline to
review the issue. ORS 19.365(5). Because the transcript is
necessary to evaluate father’s assignment of error and one
has not been provided, we conclude that father’s argument
that the trial court erred in calculating child support is
unreviewable.
We agree with father that the supplemental judg-
ment appears to contain a typographical error, inasmuch
as in one place, it refers to a child who is not one of the
parents’ children. Father asserts that he was not served
with the proposed judgment, which would have allowed him
to address that (and any other) errors. However, mother’s
counsel signed a certificate of service reflecting that she
served the proposed judgment on father. Moreover, as to the
typographical error, it does not appear to have impacted
the child support calculations, which is the ruling to which
father has assigned error. To the extent father is concerned
about the typographical error, the appropriate course is to
seek correction in the trial court. See ORCP 71 A.
Affirmed.