Filed 6/30/26 Marriage of Jacobs CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 TWO
In re Marriage of ERICA and
JONATHAN JACOBS.
ERICA JACOBS, A173230
Respondent, (San Mateo County Super. Ct.
v. No. 20FAM00918)
JONATHAN JACOBS,
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
Appellant. AND DENYING REHEARING
NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 1, 2026, be modified
as follows:
On page 1, remove “a petition for divorce and” from the second
sentence. The sentence is changed to read:
In June 2020, Erica filed an application for a domestic violence
restraining order.
1
There is no change in the judgment.
The petition for rehearing filed June 15, 2026, is denied.
Dated: __________________ _________________________
STEWART, P. J.
2
Filed 6/1/26 Marriage of Jacobs CA1/2 (unmodified opinion)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 TWO
In re Marriage of ERICA and
JONATHAN JACOBS.
ERICA JACOBS,
Respondent, A173230
v.
(San Mateo County Super. Ct.
JONATHAN JACOBS,
No. 20FAM00918)
Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Jonathan and Erica were married in 2014 and separated in 2020; they
share one minor child.2 In June 2020, Erica filed a petition for divorce and an
application for domestic violence restraining order. In July 2020, the court
granted the restraining order request, giving Erica sole custody of their child
1 We dispose of this appeal by memorandum opinion because it “raise[s]
no substantial issue of law or fact.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; see also
Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19, Abbreviated Opinions; see
also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853 [“Memorandum opinions
may vary in style, from a stereotyped checklist or ‘fill in the blanks’ form to a
tailored summary of the critical facts and the applicable law”].)
2 Because the parties share the same surname, we use their first names
for clarity. We intend no disrespect.
1
pursuant to Family Code section 3044 (section 3044).3 At some point
thereafter, the court ordered Jonathan to pay child support.4
In the following years, Jonathan participated in therapy, completed 52
weeks of domestic violence counseling, and participated in supervised
visitation with the child.
After a hearing held in May 2024, the court found that Jonathan had
successfully rebutted the section 3044 presumption and awarded both
Jonathan and Erica joint legal custody of the child while Erica maintained
sole physical custody.
It appears that in October 2024, the court modified the child support
payments, requiring Jonathan to pay $462 per month in child support and
$69 per month in child care (a total of $531 per month).5
In January 2025, Jonathan filed a request for change to the child
support payments and a recalculation of arrears. Jonathan also requested
child support payments from Erica. The court held a hearing on Jonathan’s
request on April 3, 2025,6 and issued a written order on April 21 that
(1) directed Jonathan to make monthly child support payments of $546.00,
which included a “[m]andatory additional child support” payment of $66.00
per month to the “State Disbursement Unit”; (2) continued the matter to July
3 Section 3044 creates a “rebuttable presumption” that it would be
“detrimental to the best interest of the child” to award custody to a parent
who has been found to have “perpetrated domestic violence within the
previous five years.” (Fam. Code, § 3044, subd. (a).) Further undesignated
statutory references are to the Family Code.
4 The initial child support order is not part of the record on appeal.
5 The October 2024 order is not part of the record on appeal but is
referenced in Jonathan’s subsequent request to modify support payments and
recalculate arrears.
6 We do not have a reporter’s transcript of the April 3 proceedings.
2
2025 “for child support modification review” before the Department of Child
Support Services; (3) ordered Jonathan “to seek work and apply to at least 3
jobs per week” and “submit bi-weekly work search logs”; and (4) directed both
parties to file updated income and expense declarations. Attached to the
order was a “Guidelines Calculation Results Summary” printout, dated April
16, 2025.
After the April 3 hearing but before the court issued its April 21 order,
Jonathan filed a notice of appeal challenging the “4/3/2025” ruling on his
request to modify child support. We consider this notice of appeal timely
filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(c); see also Brown v. County of Los
Angeles (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 320, 322, fn. 1 [deeming “premature appeal”
as timely filed from the subsequent judgment].)
DISCUSSION
“We do not retry cases on appeal.” (FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish
(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1276.) To the contrary, we presume the lower
court’s rulings are correct, and the appellant bears the burden of
affirmatively showing error. (Universal Home Improvement, Inc. v. Robertson
(2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 116, 125.) These rules apply equally to self-
represented parties like Jonathan. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th
1229, 1246–1247.)
To show error, the appellant “ ‘must supply [us] with some cogent
argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.’ ” (United
Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 146,
quoting City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286–287.)
This obligation includes providing the applicable standard of review. (Ewald
v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948 [failing “to
articulate the standard of review on appeal [is] in and of itself a potentially
3
fatal omission”].) “Mere suggestions of error without supporting argument or
authority other than general abstract principles do not properly present
grounds for appellate review” and “justifies rejection of [appellant’s]
argument on this basis alone.” (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v.
Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078;
Bishop v. The Bishop’s School (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 893, 910.)
Further, “ ‘Any statement in a brief concerning matters in the appellate
record—whether factual or procedural and no matter where in the brief the
reference to the record occurs—must be supported by a citation to the
record,’ ” and “courts will decline to consider any factual assertion
unsupported by record citation at the point where it is asserted.” (Professional
Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 970; Alki
Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 590, fn. 8,
italics added.)
Here, Jonathan’s record and briefing are inadequate such that they do
not allow for appellate review. Jonathan’s briefing does not use full
sentences, makes several unintelligible arguments, and, at times, appears to
challenge orders and findings that Jonathan neither appealed from nor
included in the record. To the extent we can understand Jonathan’s
argument as defined by the single heading—“The superior court erred in
denying appellant’s motion to modify child support because there have been
significant changes in circumstance, and the order is based on perjury”—he
attempts to relitigate the matters decided by the trial court and fails to
include appropriate citations to the record, a full or adequate record, or any
legal authority supporting his position. Such a conclusory statement is
insufficient to carry Jonathan’s burden on appeal. (Bishop v. The Bishop’s
School, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 910 [failure to develop arguments by
4
“stating the law, and calling out relevant portions of the record, [which show]
that the trial court committed reversible error,” “justifies rejection of
[appellant’s] argument[s] on this basis alone”].) Accordingly, Jonathan has
forfeited his claims on appeal by failing to develop or support them with
accurate citations to the record and pertinent legal authority.
In any event, we can identify no abuse of discretion. “An order denying
child support modification is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be
reversed ‘only if prejudicial error is found from examining the record below.’ ”
(In re Marriage of Cole (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 450, 457.) Further, the amount
of child support is “established by the formula provided in subdivision (a) of
section 4055,” which is the presumptively correct amount absent “admissible
evidence showing that application of the formula would be unjust or
inappropriate.” (§ 4057, subds. (a), (b).) Here, the court’s child support order
attaches “a computer printout showing the parents’ income and percentages
of time each parent spends with the children,” “which shows the calculation
of child support payable.” The attached printout reflects Jonathan’s “Basic
Child Support Amount” as “[$]376.00 to [$]480.00” with a “Child Support
Add-On[ ] Amount” of “[$]66.00.” Accordingly, the total amount of child
support order ($546.00 per month) is supported by substantial evidence and
reflects no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The April 21, 2025 order is affirmed. We decline to award costs. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
5
DESAUTELS, J.
We concur:
STEWART, P. J.
MILLER, J.
In re Marriage of Jacobs (A173230)
6