Marriage of Sareen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 12/4/13  Marriage of Sareen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Sacramento)

----

 

 

 
>

In re the Marriage of REEMA and VIKAS SAREEN.	C070678
REEMA SAREEN,                           Respondent,               v.   VIKAS SAREEN,                           Appellant.	(Super. Ct. No. 06FL00798)

 

 

 

 

            Vikas Sareen (father) appeals from
an order denying his motion to modify child support.  Father raises numerous claims on appeal, but
without a reporter’s transcript we must assume there was sufficient evidence
presented in the trial court to support the trial court’s ruling.

            We will affirm the trial court’s
order.

BACKGROUND

            The appellate record does not
include a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on father’s motion to modify
child support.  This is referred to as a
judgment roll appeal.  (>Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d
1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of
America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)

            The limited appellate record
establishes that on August 30, 2011, father filed a motion to modify child
support based on changed circumstances.  Father
asserted the following:  he was required
to leave his job with the New York Port Authority and relocate to India; he was
“compelled to stay in India” while criminal charges were pending against him; his
application for reinstatement with the Port Authority was rejected and he was
no longer employed by the Port Authority; but he was able to obtain work as an
associate professor of engineering in India, a job that paid less money.  Father attached various documents to his
reply declaration in support of his claims: 
a letter from Manav Rachna International University confirming his status as an associate
professor, two pay stubs from the university, and e-mail correspondence with
the Port Authority indicating there was no available position to offer him for
reinstatement. 

            Following a hearing on November
17, 2011, father
submitted additional e-mail correspondence with the Port Authority.  In those e-mails, dated May 2011, father was
told by a man named “Jim Steven” that a job was not currently available for
father, but someone was retiring so a job would soon become available.  Jim noted the job would need to be re-classified
and some work would need to be done through “HR,” but they would work to
resolve things quickly. 

            Commissioner Harman heard father’s
motion on January 19, 2012. 
Father objected to the commissioner and requested a statement of decision.  Commissioner Harman subsequently issued findings
and recommendations with an attached statement of decision, recommending denial
of father’s motion and making the following factual findings:

            “1. 
Court finds no evidence of compulsion for . . . father to
leave his job with the New York Port Authority and go to India and instead finds that . . . father
left voluntarily.

            “2. 
Father’s previous position has been eliminated but communication from
mid-2011 between . . . father and the Port Authority indicate
reinstatement is available upon job opening/reclassification and refer to an
employee who was on the verge of retirement. 
Father has made no contact with his previous employer since July 31,
2011.  There is a lack of evidence regarding the
availability/unavailability of a position for father with the Port Authority
and the Court finds that Father has failed to make reasonable efforts to renew
his employment with the Port Authority all with the intent to avoid paying
child support.  Father acknowledges
temporary employment during his stay in India but has made no effort to pay any child
support.” 

            Father appealed from the findings
and recommendations.href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]  But
when no objections were received in the trial court, the trial court adopted
Commissioner Harman’s findings and recommendations as the order of the
court.  Father filed a second notice of
appeal from that order. 

            On May 31, 2012, father made a motion asking the trial court
to order preparation of a settled statement for the January 19, 2012 hearing. 
Father claimed that when he learned there was no court reporter at the
hearing, he asked opposing counsel to stipulate that they would prepare an agreed
statement under rule 8.130(g)(1)(A) of the California Rules of Court, but father
never received a response.  He argued the
settled statement was “necessary for . . . prosecution of his Appeal
pending with the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District and [he] will suffer
irreparable harm if such relief is not granted.” 

            Commissioner Harman heard father’s
motion for a settled statement and father again objected to the
commissioner.  Father argued he did not
know until April that a court reporter was not present at the January
19, 2012
hearing.  He also argued that his appeal
from the court’s order denying his motion to modify child support would be “short
changed” without a settled statement because he had no reporter’s
transcript.  From his perspective, the California
Rules of Court contemplate a settled statement for people in his position.  Commissioner Harman denied father’s motion, concluding
that the existing statement of decision was adequate and that father’s request
was untimely because the hearing took place seven months earlier. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

            On appeal, we must presume the trial
court’s judgment is correct.  (>Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d
557, 564.)  Thus, we must adopt all
inferences in favor of the judgment, unless the record expressly contradicts
them.  (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.)

            It is the burden of the party challenging
a judgment to provide an adequate record to assess claims of error.  (Ketchum
v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.)  When an appeal is “on the judgment roll” (>Allen v. Toten, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d
at pp. 1082-1083), we must conclusively presume evidence was presented
that is sufficient to support the court’s findings.  (Ehrler
v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.)  Our review is limited to determining whether
any error “appears on the face of the record.” 
(National Secretarial Service, Inc.
v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521; Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.163.)

            These rules of appellate procedure
apply to father even though he is representing himself on appeal.  (Leslie
v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121;
see also Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d
623, 638-639, disapproved on other grounds in Douglas v. Ostermeier (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 729, 744, fn. 1; >Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th
786, 795.)

DISCUSSION

I

            Father contends the trial court erred
in denying his request to modify child support. 
The record does not support father’s contention.

            In support of its decision, the
trial court found that father voluntarily left his job with the New York Port
Authority.  The trial court also found that
communications with the Port Authority in mid-2011 indicated job reinstatement
was available upon job opening/reclassification and that an employee was on the
verge of retirement; but father made no contact with the Port Authority after
July 2011.  Accordingly, the trial court
found father “failed to make reasonable efforts to renew his employment with
the Port Authority” with the “intent to avoid paying child support.”  The trial court also noted father had been
working in India, but “made no effort to pay any child support.”  For those reasons, the trial court found no
changed circumstances warranting a modification of child support.  Without a reporter’s transcript, we must
conclusively presume the evidence was sufficient to sustain those findings.  (Ehrler
v. Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154.)

II

            Father also claims that because he
was not at liberty to return to the United States, holding him to an order based on a
non-existent New
York
income violated equal protection.  But
father does not provide argument or authority supporting his equal protection
claim.  In addition, the factual basis
for his contention is not supported by the record.  The trial court expressly found that father
was not compelled to go to India, but instead left New York voluntarily. 
Moreover, in father’s prior appeal (In
re Marriage of Sareen (Mar. 22, 2012, C067526) [nonpub. opn.]), father “failed
in his burden to establish that he was required to remain in India.” 

            Father’s equal protection claim
fails.

III

            Father next claims the trial court
violated his due process rights
because he did not receive the commissioner’s findings and recommendations (filed
on January 31, 2012) until February 25, 2012, well past the 10-day
deadline to file a notice of objection (Fam. Code, § 4251, subd.
(c)). 

            Father’s due process claim is
forfeited because he does not support the claim with citations to the
record.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(C); Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245–1246 & fn. 14 [the failure to present
argument with references to the record results in a forfeiture of any assertion
that could have been raised]; Miller v.
Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 728, 743 [lack of adequate
citation to the record forfeits the claim of error].)

IV

            Father further argues the trial
court violated his right to due process by denying his motion to proceed on a
settled record. 

            The trial court denied father’s
motion for preparation of a settled statement after father’s most recent notice
of appeal was filed in this matter.  Father
filed an objection to the commissioner’s ruling and a de novo hearing was set
for September 17, 2012.  The record for
this appeal does not establish that the order is final.

            But even if the claim were properly
before this court, it fails because it is not supported by any meaningful
argument or citations to relevant legal
authority.  (People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 150 [a reviewing court
need not address any issue purportedly raised without argument or citation to
relevant authority]; Guthrey v. State of
California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116 [merely setting forth
general legal principles without specifically demonstrating how they establish
error is insufficient to raise a cognizable issue on appeal]; >Estate of Hoffman (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d
635, 639 [“It is



 

the duty of counsel
to support his claim by argument and citation of authority.  [A reviewing court is] not obliged to perform
the duty resting on counsel”].)

DISPOSITION

            The trial court order is affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                                          MAURO                        , J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

                      RAYE                          , P. J.

 

 

                      DUARTE                     , J.