Marriage of Yusuf and Shcherbak

Filed 6/9/10 Marriage of Yusuf and Shcherbak CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William D. Stewart, Judge. Affirmed.

Sunny Yusuf, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Anna Shcherbak (also identified as Ganna S. Shcherbak), in pro. per., for Respondent.

Kenneth R. Nahigian for Respondent Alexander Yusuf.

INTRODUCTION

Sunny Yusuf (Husband) appeals from multiple postjudgment orders entered in this action dissolving his marriage to Ganna S. Shcherbak, also identified as Anna Shcherbak (Wife). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Husband and Wife were married on April 9, 1999. They separated on December 29, 2001. They have one child, Alexander, born in 1998.

Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on January 3, 2002. When mediation failed to resolve the parties disputes over child custody and support, the court granted custody to Wife with monitored visitation for Husband.

On November 18, 2002, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution of marriage as to status only. The trial court reserved jurisdiction over all remaining issues.

Following a hearing on child custody, on November 24, 2004 the trial court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody over their child. The custody order contained specific provisions regarding when each parent was to have physical custody, drop-off and pick-up, travel, school, healthcare, etc. The order also provided that its terms and conditions could be changed if necessary.

On May 31, 2005, trial was held on reserved issues. The trial court took waivers from the parties and awarded no spousal support. It found there was no community property to be divided. It approved a stipulation between the parties regarding child custody issues and reserved jurisdiction over child support. The stipulation was filed June 30.

On March 6, 2006, after a hearing and pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the trial court entered an order as to child custody and support. Husband was ordered to pay child support to Wife.

This order did not end the parties disputes regarding child custody and support. Eventually, the parties stipulated to the appointment of a psychologist to evaluate child custody issues.

On February 29, 2008, Husbands visitation was temporarily discontinued. On April 14, the trial court issued an order granting temporary sole legal custody of the child to Wife. It ruled that [h]aving declined to have any monitored visitation recommended by the evaluator, [Husband] shall have no visitation with the minor child . . . until further order of the court. It ordered that all communication between the parties be by email through The Family Wizard, and that Husband stay away from the childs school.

On May 1, 2008, the court appointed counsel for the child. The court ordered Husband to submit to a psychological examination.

On June 6, 2008, with Husbands agreement, the court again ordered him to submit to a psychological examination. It again granted Husband supervised visitation at a neutral location and telephone contact with the child, and it ordered that all communication be by email through The Family Wizard. The court stated that it would conduct an interview with the child.

On July 8, 2008, the facility where Husbands visitation took place notified the court that it was discontinuing its services due to Husbands refusal to abide by the facilitys rules. The court granted him visitation at a different location.

On September 17, 2008, the trial court granted Husbands request to cancel monitored visitation. It ordered that no visitation take place until Husband was ready to accept monitored visitation. It allowed Husband telephone contact with the child, however. Husband filed a notice of appeal from this order on September 22.

The court issued a temporary restraining order on October 8, 2008, ordering Husband to stay away from Wife and their child, as well as the childs school, and to refrain from unauthorized harassment or contact with Wife and the child.

On October 20, 2008, Husband filed a notice of appeal, purportedly from the orders issued on February 29, April 14, June 6 and September 17, 2008. He later amended this notice of appeal to refer only to the September 17 order.

On October 27, 2008, the trial court again ordered that Wife have sole legal and physical custody of the parties child. Again, since Husband declined to have any monitored visitations, the court ordered that there be no visitation. It allowed contact by telephone at Wifes discretion. It reiterated that Husband was to stay away from the childs school.

On November 3, 2008, the trial court issued an order reissuing the temporary restraining order against Husband. It granted Husband one day of visitation with the child per month, allowed the child to contact Husband as often as he wants, but ordered Husband not to contact the child. On November 17, Husband filed a notice of appeal from the November 3 order.

Husband filed another notice of appeal on December 1, 2008. This notice did not specify which order was being appealed, but attached was a copy of the October 27 order.

DISCUSSION

It is well established that, in addressing an appeal, we begin with the presumption that a judgment or order of the trial court is correct. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Fleishman v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 350, 357.) The appellant has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record. (Ballardv. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Robbins v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 313, 318.) Meeting this burden requires citations to the record to direct the court to the pertinent evidence or other matters in the record which demonstrate reversible error. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1); Guthreyv.State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115; Culbertsonv.R. D. Werner Co., Inc. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 704, 710.) It also requires citation to relevant authority and argument. (Mansellv. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.) It is not our responsibility to comb the appellate record for facts, or to conduct legal research in search of authority, to support the contentions on appeal. (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768; see also Annod Corp. v. Hamilton & Samuels (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1301.) An appellants failure to meet this burden waives the issues on appeal. (Mansell, supra, at pp. 545-546.)

Husbands briefs contain lengthy and rambling discussions of what transpired in this case, in many instances unsupported by any citation to the record. What little authority he cites is in his reply brief and inapplicable to any issues that might properly be raised on appeal. He thus has failed to meet his burden to cite to the record to direct us to the pertinent evidence or other matters in the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1); Guthreyv.State of California, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1115), to cite to relevant authority and to include legal argument (Mansellv. Board of Administration, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at pp. 545-546) demonstrating reversible error.

While Husband voices many complaints regarding the conduct of the proceedings below, he does not articulate any specific claims of error related to the orders from which he appeals. On appeal, we address only those arguments that are sufficiently developed to be cognizable. To the extent [Husband] perfunctorily asserts other claims, without development and, indeed, without a clear indication that they are intended to be discrete contentions, they are not properly made, and are rejected on that basis. (Peoplev. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 214, fn. 19.)

We acknowledge a self-represented litigants understanding of the rules on appeal are, as a practical matter, more limited than an experienced appellate attorneys. Whenever possible, we do not strictly apply technical rules of procedure in a manner that deprives a self-represented litigant of a hearing. However, where, as here, the total lack of compliance with the Rules of Court results in our inability to discern the claims of error being raised and the basis on which they rest, and thus conduct a meaningful review of the trial courts decision, we cannot ignore the fundamental rules of appellate practice. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

In summary, Husband has failed to raise on appeal any cognizable issues related to the orders from which he appeals. Neither has he demonstrated any error in those orders. Thus, they must be affirmed.^[1]

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

JACKSON, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

ZELON, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] Wifes request to augment the record with a copy of the evaluators report is denied. It is unnecessary to our resolution of the appeals.