Marriage
of Brocklehurst and Masbad





























Filed 12/12/12 Marriage of Brocklehurst and Masbad 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NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 TED BROCKLEHURST and KIMBERLY MASBAD.
TED BROCKLEHURST, Respondent, v. KIMBERLY MASBAD, Appellant.	C070691 (Super. Ct. No. 04FL03062)

Kimberly Masbad (mother) appeals
from an order modifying child support.
On appeal, mother claims the trial court violated her href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">right to due process in ordering her to
pay child support and erred by failing to consider Ted Brocklehurst’s (father)
earning capacity in calculating child support.


Mother has elected to proceed on a
clerk’s transcript. (
ADDIN BA xc <@ru> xl 31 s WZLWBS000001 xpl 1 l "Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.121" Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a
reporter’s transcript of the hearing in this matter. This is referred to as a “judgment roll”
appeal. ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 52 s WZLWBS000002 xhfl Rep
xpl 1 l "Allen v.
Toten(1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079" Allen v. Toten
(1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; ADDIN BA xc
<@cs> xl 57 s WZLWBS000003 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.) On the face of this record, no error has been
established. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court’s order.

Facts
and Proceedings

The limited record we have
establishes that on August 26, 2011, father filed a motion
to modify child support. In support of
his motion, father argued that although he and mother previously agreed neither
of them would pay child support, because the agreement set child support “below
guidelines,” child support was modifiable at any time. Father also filed an income and expense
declaration with his motion, stating his income to be $6,205 per month; he
attached several pay stubs to his declaration.


Mother opposed father’s motion. In support of her opposition, mother argued
father failed to show a material change in circumstances that would warrant a
modification of the current order for support.
Mother also argued that father’s income had been reduced as a result of href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">misconduct at work, and he should be
imputed with income “based on his earning capacity per Family Code
4058(b).” Mother filed her own income
and expense declaration, declaring her income to be $7,997 per month.

Father’s motion was heard by the
trial court on March 1, 2012. At that hearing, the court ordered mother to
pay to father $259 in child support each month, beginning March 1,
2012. The parties also stipulated that “if [father]
prevail[ed] in his action for reinstatement [with] back pay [mother would be]
entitled to recalculation of all support paid as if [father] were making the
higher income (except all periods of industrial disability where he would not
be entitled to loss pay) and if [father] does not get back pay, [mother] may
reinstate her motion requesting court to attribute income to him at
. . . higher proved amount
for whatever months it would be . . . .”

Mother appeals from the trial
court’s order.

I

Applicable
Appellate Rules

On appeal, we must presume the trial
court’s judgment is correct. ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 49 s WZLWBS000004 xhfl Rep
xpl 1 l "Denham v. Superior
Court(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557" 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 ADDIN BA xc
<@cs> xl 43 s WZLWBS000005 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 to provide an adequate record to assess claims of
error. ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 50 s WZLWBS000006 xhfl Rep
xpl 1 l "Ketchum v.
Moses(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122" Ketchum v. Moses
(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.)
When an appeal is “on the judgment roll” ( ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 54 s WZLWBS000002 xhfl Rep
xpl 1 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. ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 47 s WZLWBS000009 xhfl Rep
xpl 1 l "Ehrler v.
Ehrler(1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147" 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.” ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 78 s WZLWBS000010 xhfl Rep
xpl 1 l "National Secretarial
Service, Inc. v. Froehlich(1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510" National Secretarial
Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521; see also ADDIN BA xc
<@ru> xl 31 s WZLWBS000011 xpl 1 l "Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.163" Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.163.)

These restrictive rules of appellate
procedure apply to mother even though she is representing herself 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; Wantuch
v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 795.)

II

Due
Process of Law

Mother contends the trial court
denied “her rights to due process and increased child support without affording
[her] the benefit of a proper trial.” In
support of her contention, mother claims the trial court ordered her to pay
child support in October 2011, based on a “falsified I&E Declaration.”

There are multiple problems with
mother’s claim. First, there is no
October 2011 order for child support in the record. This court cannot review orders not included
in the record. Second, mother’s notice
of appeal refers only to the March 2012 order for child support; there is no
reference to an October 2011 order.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100 [notice must identify the order or
judgment appealed from].) And, third,
mother filed her notice of appeal on March 16, 2012. Accordingly, any appeal from an order in
October 2011 is not timely. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.104 [notice must be filed 60 days after notice of entry of
judgment served, or 180 days after entry of judgment].)

Mother also claims the trial court
violated her due process rights in March 2012 when, according to mother, the
trial court “asked [mother] to cite a specific case where salary was imputed to
a parent that was on disability,” then refused to continue with the trial when
mother could not cite such authority.
Mother’s argument is not supported by citations to the record or
relevant authority. Accordingly, her
argument is forfeited. (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 and citation to legal authority results
in a forfeiture of any assertion that could have been raised].)

III

Child
Support Calculation

Mother contends that, in calculating
child support, the trial court failed to consider: father’s earning capacity, the appropriate
Labor Code, father’s union contract, and the court’s “own procedure as defined
in the California Judges’ Benchguide.”
Without a reporter’s transcript of that hearing, however, we must
presume the court properly considered the evidence presented, which was
relevant to calculating child support.
We must also conclusively presume that evidence was sufficient to
sustain the court’s finding that mother owed father $259 in child support each
month, beginning March 1, 2012. ( ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 49 s WZLWBS000009 xhfl Rep
xpl 1 Ehrler v. Ehrler, supra,
126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154.) On the
face of this record, we conclude there is no error.





Disposition

The order of the trial court is
affirmed.







HULL , J.







We concur:







NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.







ROBIE , J.