Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2021, the Fresno County Superior Court ordered joint legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child. On May 30, 2025, father Ivan Gonzalez filed a request for a temporary emergency order modifying custody, seeking full legal custody and educational rights of the parties' six-year-old son. He alleged that mother Walleska Marenco failed to inform law enforcement of suspected child abuse at the child's public school and requested homeschooling. In support, he included photographs of scratches on the child's arm, messages from school personnel, an affidavit alleging neglect, alcoholism, and abuse by mother, a transcript of a March 21, 2022 exchange in which mother said she was 'drunk' when she dropped off the child, and an undated transcript in which the child said a teacher scratched his arm.
A trial was held on October 9 and 21, 2025, at which both parties appeared, testified, and introduced evidence. Neither party requested an official court reporter, and no reporter's transcript was included in the appellate record; several videos and statements introduced at trial were also missing. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found a material change in circumstance regarding the parties' ability to co-parent and communicate, concluded mother was the parent more willing to co-parent and inform father, and granted mother sole legal custody with decision-making authority over health, education, and welfare, while keeping joint physical custody with a detailed visitation schedule. The court also changed the exchange location to the police department, ordered father to undergo individual counseling, and denied his request to modify spousal support.
Father appealed the October 2025 order. Mother did not file a respondent's brief despite written notice from the clerk that the appeal could be submitted for decision on the record and the opening brief. No brief was filed and no good cause shown, so the court decided the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and father's oral argument under California Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the appellate record was inadequate for review of father's claims. Orders challenged on appeal are presumed correct, and the appellant bears the burden of affirmatively showing error and prejudice. A self-represented litigant is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other parties, must support claims of error with meaningful argument and citation to authority, and must provide an adequate record; failure to do so requires the issue to be resolved against him.
Father's only contention was that the trial court failed to consider a Fresno Police Department incident report, videos, photographs, and other evidence favorable to him. He did not develop the argument beyond listing assertions and cited no legal authority or record citations. The court declined to furnish argument or search the record for him, and on that basis alone his claim failed. To the extent he raised a substantial evidence challenge, he misapplied the standard: he cited only evidence favorable to himself, omitted mother's evidence and filings, and asked the court to reweigh the evidence, which it will not do.
The court found no abuse of discretion. Nothing in the order suggested the trial court failed to consider the evidence, and the trial minutes showed it considered all relevant evidence and testimony. Because the record contained ample evidence supporting the order, the October 21, 2025 custody order was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant's failure to provide a reporter's transcript of trial proceedings and the totality of evidence introduced below renders the appellate record inadequate for review and requires that the issue be resolved against the appellant.
- Self-represented litigants are treated like any other party and are entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than represented litigants on appeal.
- Appellate arguments consisting of bare assertions without developed analysis, citation to authority, or record citations will be rejected; the court will not construct arguments or search the record for the appellant.
- A substantial evidence challenge requires the appellant to set forth all relevant evidence, not merely evidence favorable to his position; failure to do so forfeits the claim.
- Under the abuse of discretion standard, a child custody ruling must be upheld if correct on any basis, and the appellate court will not reweigh evidence or disturb the trial court's resolution of evidentiary conflicts.
Why It Matters
This unpublished opinion reinforces the critical importance of an adequate appellate record in family law custody disputes, where trial court factual findings are central. Without a reporter's transcript or the evidence presented at trial, the appellate court cannot review whether the trial court properly considered the evidence, and the appellant's failure to supply the record is fatal to the appeal.
It also confirms that self-represented litigants must meet the same procedural and substantive requirements as represented parties, including supporting arguments with authority and record citations. The court's refusal to construct arguments reflects the principle that appellate review is confined to the proceedings below as brought up in a properly prepared record, and the presumption of correctness cannot be overcome by undeveloped assertions of error.