C.S. v. G.S. (In re Marriage of C.S.)

• Decision Date: 07 January 2020
• Docket Number: D071281
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re the Marriage of C.S. and G.S. C.S., Appellant, v. G.S., Respondent.

In re the Marriage of C.S. and G.S.C.S., Appellant, v. G.S., Respondent.

D071281

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

January 7, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. ED53926)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maureen Hallahan, Judge. Affirmed.

C.S., in pro. per., for Appellant.

G.S., in pro. per., for Respondent.

Appellant C.S. appeals from a September 2016 family court order following a trial de novo in which the family court set and confirmed temporary child support for the parties' adult child, S.S. C.S., a self-represented litigant, contends the family court commissioner abused its discretion in determining and calculating support and the family court judge erred in various other ways, including by not advising the parties that a commissioner would hear their matters, calculating the amount of support, and imputing income to her. She asks us to reverse and remand the matter to the family court for various actions,¹ some of which are beyond the scope of our review of the order at issue on appeal. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND²

This matter has a lengthy procedural history, recounted in fair detail in the family court commissioner's February 16, 2016 Final Statement of Decision, adopted in large part by the family court in its September 13, 2016 findings and order after hearing. The order for temporary adult support that is the subject of this appeal was preceded byhearings and orders issued in July 2014, September 2014, January 2015, July 2015, August 2015, and November 2015. Another hearing on C.S.'s request for attorney fees took place in December 2015. As explained below, the orders in connection with those hearings—including orders denying C.S.'s motion to set aside a prior child support and arrears order, and either granting or denying C.S. attorney fees—are not at issue on this appeal.

In November 2015, the parties appeared before a family court commissioner for a hearing on C.S.'s request to modify support for S.S., for a trial on adult child support, and for sanctions. The commissioner heard the parties' testimony and considered evidence of S.S.'s behavior, including hospital records and psychological evaluations. It made extensive findings as to S.S.'s medical history and hospitalizations. The commissioner found S.S. was incapacitated from earning a living due to mental disability; was without sufficient means, was disabled and received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) of $648 per month; and C.S. bore the primary financial responsibility for S.S. It ordered G.S. to pay $1,289 in guideline temporary child support effective November 1, 2015, but reserved and suspended the order effective the following month, December 1, 2015, and continued the matter "for a review to determine where [S.S.] is living and whether [S.S.] is actually receiving ongoing consistent treatment whether it is inpatient or outpatient, and whether [S.S.] is taking . . . medication as prescribed." The commissioner ordered the parties to open trust and checking accounts in the event S.S. was in a residential facility, or arrange for the support to be paid directly to the facility. The commissioner issued its findings and order after hearing on February 11, 2016.

In July 2016, at C.S.'s request, the family court conducted a trial de novo limited to the commissioner's findings and order. The parties agreed that the sole issue before the family court was the question of adult child support for S.S. Thereafter, the family court on its own motion reconsidered its order, held a further hearing on the matter in August 2016, and issued an order on September 13, 2016, modifying its order in part. Specifically, the court (1) made specific findings as to G.S.'s net income and time share with S.S.; (2) imputed $1,169 in gross monthly income to C.S. on a finding she was not working to her capacity; (3) found monthly guideline child support to be $1,486 payable from G.S. to C.S.; (4) found S.S. was receiving $881 in SSI and deducted that amount from the guideline support amount; (5) ordered G.S. to pay C.S. prorated adult child support of $453 for February 2015 (February 9, 2015, to February 28, 2015) and $605 ($1486 minus $881) per month for the period March 1, 2015, to November 30, 2015; and (6) adopted all of the commissioner's other findings and recommendations not in conflict with its previous rulings.

DISCUSSION

I. The Scope of This Appeal and Principles of Appellate Review

C.S. has appealed only from the September 13, 2016 family court order determining the parties' gross monthly income, setting guideline child support, ordering G.S. to pay $605 in monthly adult child support from March 1, 2015, to November 30, 2015, and approving all other consistent findings and recommendations from the familycourt commissioner's February 11, 2016 order.³ C.S.'s notice of appeal was timely filed as to that order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(7); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1).) C.S. discusses the other earlier hearings and orders throughout her briefing,⁴ but those matters are not properly before us. Though we are required to liberally construe notices of appeal in favor of their sufficiency (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2)), we cannot do so where an order is not mentioned at all. (In re J.F. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 70, 76; Baker v. Castaldi (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 218, 225-226; Filbin v. Fitzgerald (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 154, 173; Ellis v. Ellis (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 837, 846 [appellate court's jurisdiction is " 'limited in scope to the notice of appeal' "].) Such appeals would be untimely in any event, requiring us to dismiss them on our own motion. (See Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 46 Cal.4th 106, 113.)

C.S.'s briefing in this court also compels us to emphasize settled principles of appellate review. "[A]s a party appearing in propria persona, [C.S] 'is entitled to thesame, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.' [Citations.] Accordingly, we may disregard factual contentions that are not supported by citations to the record [citation] or are based on information that is outside the record." (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520.) We disregard conclusory arguments. (Ibid.) C.S. must provide cogent legal argument in support of her claims of error with citation to legal authority. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C); Sims v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1081.) Absent these required matters, the point is forfeited. (Sims, at p. 1081; People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.)

On appeal, a judgment or an order is presumed to be correct, and C.S. as the party challenging the order must affirmatively show error. (E.g., Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141; In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) We also presume judicial duty is properly performed; that the court below knows and applies the correct statutory and case law, and will ignore material it knows is incompetent, irrelevant, or inadmissible. (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1526.)

II. Application of Appellate Review Standards Invalidates Many of C.S.'s Arguments

C.S.'s opening brief on appeal is difficult to follow. Both her "Statement of the Case" and her "Statement of Facts" discuss the orders that are not within the scope of this appeal, and they are argumentative and conclusory. Her brief lacks the type of headings and subheadings that ensure litigants " 'present their cause systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may beadvised, as they read, of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass.' " (Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830-1831, fn. 4.) Throughout, C.S. recounts earlier hearings and reargues the merits of her case, impermissibly making factual assertions that she believes are favorable to her position and presenting them in a rambling, disorganized fashion. She impermissibly challenges G.S.'s credibility or that of Department of Child Support Service representatives, contrary to settled principles of appellate review. (See In re Marriage of Cipriari (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 83, 94 [on reviewing a statement of decision following a bench trial, appellate court "may not reweigh the evidence and are bound by the trial court's credibility determinations"]; Shulman v. Shulman (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 120, 122 [in reviewing modification of alimony award for abuse of discretion, "[i]t is not the province of [the appellate court] to judge the credibility of witnesses"].) While C.S. correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for an adult support award she does not apply it; many of her argument headings do not coherently address how and why the court abused its discretion, the normal inquiry on review of an adult support order. (In re Marriage of Drake (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 934, 939 (Drake II).)

Although we exercise our discretion to consider those issues we can discern in C.S.'s disorganized arguments related to the appealed-from order, there are times when it is not possible to understand what precisely she is arguing. "It is not our responsibility to act as counsel for [C.S.] and attempt to arrange [her] arguments coherently. In addition to the failure to provide proper headings, [C.S.'s] failure to provide coherent organization to [her] arguments forfeits consideration of those arguments on appeal." (...