>County> of >Solano> v. Archer

















Filed
1/16/13 County of
Solano v.
Archer CA3











NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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













IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----




>

COUNTY OF SOLANO et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRYSTAL ARCHER, Defendant and Respondent; DEREK TODD, Appellant.

C070206 (Super. Ct. No. CVFS092059)

Plaintiff Derek Todd brings this pro
se judgment roll appeal from a family court order that denied his motion to
recover $37,490 in “back child support” Todd paid pursuant to a 2001 support
order. Because he has failed to
demonstrate error, we affirm the order.

Facts and Proceedings

The limited record on appeal
establishes that Todd and Crystal Archer are the parents of one son.

In 2001, the href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Solano
County Superior Court entered an order that Todd pay $100 per month in
child support expenses for his son, stating that it did so in accordance with a
stipulation between the parties.

In September 2011, Todd filed the
instant petition in Yolo County Superior Court, and asserted he never agreed to
the 2001 child support order, and the order should not have been made pursuant to
Family Code section 4065. (Unspecified
section references that follow are to the Family Code.) Todd requested “corrections to past child
support calculations” and an ADDIN BA xc
<@st> xl 19 s YMPCAD000001 xpl 1 l "Family Code section" order that Archer
reimburse him $37,490 for child support he paid between 1998 and 2009.

A contested hearing was held; the
Yolo County Department of Child Support Services (the County), Todd, and Archer
appeared. No reporter’s transcript of
that hearing appears in the record on appeal.
The court’s order after hearing states that Todd’s request is denied as
unsupported by authority. We note that
the order also reflects that “Mother advised the court that she has a case out
of Tehama County that orders father to pay her child support of $80.00 per
month, beginning May 1, 2011 and ongoing.”


Discussion

I

>Applicable Standards of Review

In any appeal, we must presume the
trial court’s judgment, or order, is correct.
(See ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 49 s YMPCAD000004
xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Denham v.
Superior Court(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557" Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Accordingly, we adopt all intendments and
inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly
contradicts them. (See ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 43 s
YMPCAD000005 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Brewer
v. Simpson(1960) 53 Cal.2d 567" Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.)

It is the burden of the party
challenging a judgment or order on appeal to provide an adequate record to
assess error. ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 50 s
YMPCAD000006 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Ketchum
v. Moses(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122" Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) Thus, an appellant must not present just an
analysis of the facts and legal authority on each point made; he or she must
support arguments with appropriate citations to the material facts in the
record. If an appellant fails to do so,
the argument is forfeited. ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 81 s
YMPCAD000007 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "County
of Solano v. Vallejo Redevelopment
Agency(1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1262" County of Solano v. Vallejo
Redevelopment Agency (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274; ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 65 s
YMPCAD000008 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Duarte
v. Chino Community Hospital(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849" Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849,
856.)

Todd is not exempt from the rules
governing appeals because he is representing himself in propria persona. A party representing himself is to be treated
like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration
than other litigants having attorneys. ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 51 s
YMPCAD000009 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Nwosu
v. Uba(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229" Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 75 s
YMPCAD000010 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Leslie
v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance(1991) 234 Cal.App.3d
117" Leslie v.
Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121
[self-represented parties are held to “the same ‘restrictive procedural rules
as an attorney’ ”].)

Because Todd provides us with only a
clerk’s transcript, we must treat this as an appeal “on the judgment
roll.” ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 52 s
YMPCAD000011 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Allen
v. Toten(1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079" Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082; see also ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 57 s
YMPCAD000012 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Krueger
v. Bank of America(1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204" Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204,
207.) Therefore, we “ ‘must
conclusively presume that the evidence is ample to sustain the [trial court’s]
findings.’ ” ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 47 s
YMPCAD000013 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Ehrler
v. Ehrler(1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147" Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) In particular, without a reporter’s
transcript of the proceedings, we cannot entertain Todd’s multiple contentions
that he was denied a fair trial, in
contravention of the ADDIN BA xc
<@con> xl 15 s YMPCAD000032 l "Fifth Amendment" Fifth Amendment to the ADDIN BA xc <@con> xl 26 s
YMPCAD000014 l "United States Constitution" United States
Constitution. Our review is limited to
determining whether any error “appears on the face of the record.” ( ADDIN BA xc <@ru> xl 31 s
YMPCAD000016 xpl 1 l "Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163" Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.163; see also ADDIN BA xc
<@cs> xl 53 s YMPCAD000015 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l ">In re Marriage of Hall(2000)
81 Cal.App.4th 313" In re Marriage of Hall (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 313, 316.)

II

>Todd Has Failed to Show Reversible Error

Todd contends the child support
order made in 2001 by the Solano County Superior Court violated section 4065
because he did not stipulate to its entry, the amount Todd was ordered to pay
was below the guideline formula, and the agreement was ordered without a
hearing.

California’s strong public policy in
favor of adequate child support is expressed in statutes embodying the
statewide uniform child support guideline.
(See §§ 4050–4076; In re
Marriage of Bodo (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 373, 386.) In setting guideline support, courts are
required to adhere to the principles set forth in section 4053, which
include: (1) “A parent’s first and
principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the
parent’s circumstances and station in life”; (2) “[b]oth parents are mutually
responsible for the support of their children”; (3) “[e]ach parent should pay
for the support of the children according to his or her ability”; (4) “[c]hild
support orders in cases in which both parents have high levels of
responsibility for the children should reflect the increased costs of raising
the children in two homes and should minimize significant disparities in the
children’s living standards in the two homes”; and (5) “[c]hildren should share
in the standard of living of both parents.
Child support may therefore appropriately improve the standard of living
of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children.” (§ 4053, subd. (a), (b), (d), (f), (g);
see Marriage of Bodo at p. 385.)

To implement these policies, courts
are required to calculate child support in accordance with the mathematical
formula in section 4055. (>In re Marriage of Cheriton (2001)
92 Cal.App.4th 269, 284.) The trial
court may not depart from the guideline except in the special circumstances
enumerated in section 4057, which include the obligor parent’s “extraordinarily
high income” and cases where the “parties have stipulated to a different amount
of child support under subdivision (a) of Section 4065.” (§ 4057, subd. (b)(1), (3); >Marriage of Bodo, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 385-386.)

Todd has failed to show the trial
court erred in declining his request to find the 2001 child support order was
entered in violation of section 4065. On
a judgment roll appeal, as we have explained, our review is limited to error
that appears on the face of the record.
(See ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 55 s
YMPCAD000015 xhfl Rep xpl 1 In re Marriage of Hall, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at
p. 316.) We presume official duties
have been regularly performed ( ADDIN BA xc <@st> xl 17 s YMPCAD000020 xpl 1 l
"Evid. Code, § 664" Evid. Code, § 664),
and this presumption applies to the actions of trial judges (see ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 60 s
YMPCAD000021 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "People
v. Duran(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448" People v. Duran (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1461-1462, fn. 5; ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 43 s
YMPCAD000022 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Olivia
v. Suglio(1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 7" Olivia v. Suglio (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 7, 9 [“If the
invalidity does not appear on the face of the record, it will be presumed that
what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done”]). Without a reporter’s transcript, we must
conclusively presume that sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s order,
and the trial court properly rejected Todd’s challenge to the regularity of the
2001 support order. Nothing on the face
of the record on appeal suggests otherwise.
(
ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 39 s YMPCAD000013 xhfl Rep xpl 1 Ehrler v. Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154.)

Even were we to conclude the 2001
order was erroneously entered, Todd
would not be entitled to the relief he seeks.
Todd claims he should be permitted to recover from Archer the child
support he paid while the 2001 order was in place: in so doing, Todd is effectively requesting
an impermissible retroactive modification of child support. (See ADDIN BA xc <@st> xl 24 s
YMPCAD000028 xpl 1 l "Fam. Code, §§ 3651, 3653" §§ 3651,
3653.) Except under circumstances not
present here, ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 12 s
YMPCAD000046 l "section 3561" section 3651 provides
that “a support order may not be modified or terminated as to an amount that
accrued before the date of the filing of the notice of motion or order to show
cause to modify or terminate.” ( ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 19 s
YMPCAD000047 xpl 1 l "§ 351, subd. (c)(1)" § 3651, subd.
(c)(1).) “Although a decree for support
‘may be modified as to installments to become due in the future[,] [a]s to
accrued installments it is final.’ ”
(
ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 52 s YMPCAD000029 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l ">In re Marriage of Perez(1995)
35 Cal.App.4th 77" In re Marriage of Perez (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 77, 80; see also
ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 57 s
YMPCAD000030 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "County
of Santa Clara v. Perry(1998) 18 Cal.4th 435" County of Santa Clara v. Perry (1998) 18 Cal.4th 435,
441.) Todd may not now seek to recover
amounts he paid prior to bringing the instant motion.

>



Disposition

The order of the trial court is
affirmed. The parties shall bear their own
costs on appeal. ( ADDIN BA xc <@ru> xl 47 s
YMPCAD000031 xpl 1 l "Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2),
(5)" Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2),
(5).)







HULL , J.







We concur:







BLEASE , Acting P.
J.







MAURO , J.