Lopez v. Lopez

• Decision Date: 30 September 2021
• Docket Number: G058605,G057773,G057649,G058069
• Citation: Lopez v. Lopez, G057649, G057773, G058069 (Cal. App. Sep 30, 2021)
• Parties: In re Marriage of ARTHUR AND CHERYL LOPEZ, ARTHUR LOPEZ, Appellant, v. CHERYL LOPEZ, Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

In re Marriage of ARTHUR AND CHERYL LOPEZ, ARTHUR LOPEZ, Appellant, v. CHERYL LOPEZ, Respondent.

Nos. G057649, G057773, G058069, G058605

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

September 30, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeals from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 16D001283 Daphne Grace Sykes, Judge.

Arthur Lopez, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

OPINION

ZELON J. ^[*]

Appellant Arthur Lopez (appellant) appeals from various orders in his ongoing family law matter relating to his former wife Cheryl Lopez (respondent) and their four children. Specifically appellant appeals from (1) denial of a domestic violence restraining order against respondent; (2) denial of discovery into his children's statements to their court-appointed attorney; (3) two separate fee waiver denials relating to reunification services; and (4) an order for reunification therapy. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is the fourth separate opinion of this court generated in this case.

The background facts are set forth in our earlier opinion, In re Marriage of Lopez (February 26, 2018, G054262) [nonpub. opn.], and are not repeated here.

Appellant appeals from four separate orders. The first was issued on April 24, 2019. In that order, the trial court (1) denied appellant's request for orders relating to a temporary restraining order; (2) denied appellant's request for copies of his children's statements to their attorney; and (3) denied appellant's request to waive fees to be paid to a reunification services provider. The second order was dated May 21, 2019. In that order, the trial court again denied appellant's request for a fee waiver related to reunification services. The third order was dated July 17, 2019. In that order, the trial court continued the hearing on certain issues related to child custody and visitation to a later date, ordered appellant to bear costs for reunification therapy, and ordered that no further filings were to be made prior to a November 19, 2019 trial. The fourth order was apparently dated November 19, 2019, per appellant's notice of appeal, but is not part of the record.

1. The First Order

The April 24, 2019 order arose from a January 16, 2019 request for order (RFO) filed by appellant. In that RFO, appellant requested the court issue an emergency order permitting him phone contact with his children. The trial court initially denied the request, pending a hearing. Also on January 16, 2019, respondent filed a request for a domestic violence temporary restraining order against appellant, as a previous three-year restraining order had expired days earlier. The trial court granted respondent's request for a temporary restraining order. Father appealed from both the denial of his request and the entry of the temporary restraining order against him.

The matter was next heard on February 6, 2019; the trial court heard testimony and denied appellant's request for a temporary restraining order. The matter was continued to April 17, 2019, then to April 24, 2019. On April 24, 2019, the trial court again heard testimony, and entered two separate orders.

One order was the subject of a stipulation between the parties. In that stipulation, the parties agreed that all prior orders were to remain in effect, except as modified by the stipulation. The parties also agreed that their children would participate in reunification therapy with appellant, with appellant paying all fees and costs.

The other order was the trial court's minute order from that day's proceedings. The minute order reflected denials of appellant's request to waive fees for the reunification therapist, appellant's request to obtain his children's statements to their court-appointed attorney, and appellant's request for orders on the temporary restraining order. The court based the last of these three denials on appellant's pending appeal of the temporary restraining order.

2. The Second Order

The May 21, 2019 order resulted from a May 17, 2019 hearing, at which the trial court heard testimony. The May 17 hearing arose from appellant's request for a waiver of the fees to be charged by the stipulated reunification therapist. The trial court concluded there was “no provision nor mechanism for the court to underwrite psychological services by a ‘private' provider rendering services in his/her private capacity. Further, the applicable fee waiver provisions apply to access to use of the court system and not to ongoing treatments the parties may require for their enrichment and development.” Accordingly, the trial court denied the fee waiver request.

3. The Third Order

The third order is a minute order from a July 17, 2019 hearing, at which there appears to have been testimony. The court set trial for “final determination on the issues of child custody and child visitation, ” ordered appellant not to file any further RFO's prior to the trial date, appointed a reunification therapist, and ordered appellant to pay all costs and fees associated with the therapy.

4. The Fourth Order

The fourth order appears to have resulted from the November 19, 2019 trial. However, the order itself is not in the record. Instead, the record contains only a courtroom judgment return sheet (which indicates that some document, likely an order or judgment, could not be processed by the clerk's office) and two notices of entry of judgment, reflecting a December 9, 2019 judgment on reserved issues, which is also not part of the record.

DISCUSSION

1. Procedural Issues

Our review of this matter is greatly hampered by serious deficiencies in appellant's brief and in the record. California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)^[1] requires briefs filed in our court to “State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point and, if possible, by citation to authority.” Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) requires references to the record when discussing facts. Rule 8.204(a)(2)(A) requires the appellant's opening brief to identify the relief sought in the trial court and the judgment or order appealed from. Rule 8.204(a)(2)(B) requires the appellant's opening brief to explain why the order appealed from is appealable. Rule 8.204(a)(2)(C) requires the appellant's opening brief to provide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record. Rule 8.204(b) requires any brief to be “reproduced by any process that produces a clear, black image of letter quality, ” and controls font, font size, line spacing, and margins, all of which are intended to allow the court to adequately read and comprehend the arguments of the litigants.

Appellant's opening brief fails to comply with any of these rules. Appellant's arguments are set forth under a blanket “Argument” heading and are not organized in any readily ascertainable way. Appellant's brief contains few citations to the record, none of which reflect anything other than his own filings. Appellant's brief fails to identify with any specificity the various orders from which he has appealed (including omitting any citation to their locations in the record), and the relief sought in the trial court. Appellant's brief contains an inadequate statement of appealability, which claims his appeal is taken from a single “final judgment, ” even though this appeal involves four separate consolidated matters, each taken from a separate order. Appellant's brief contains a “statement of the case, ” but this statement largely consists of argument, rather than a summary of facts, and fails to discuss any of the evidence offered in opposition to his contentions in the trial court. Appellant's brief is also handwritten and single-spaced, and as a result some portions of the brief are illegible.

Appellant was specifically warned of similar violations of the Rules of Court in connection with two of his prior appeals in this matter (In re Marriage of Lopez (February 26, 2018, G054262) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Marriage of Lopez (May 26, 2020, G057278) [nonpub. opn.]).

Further, appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record to support his claims of error. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) Rule 8.120(b) requires appellant to provide a reporter's transcript, agreed statement, or settled statement for any issue that “requires consideration of the oral proceedings in the superior court.” Many of appellant's contentions appear to require such consideration, for example, appellant's assertion that the trial court coerced him to agree to reunification services. All of the challenged orders resulted from hearings at which testimony was taken. Despite those facts, the record contains no reporter's transcripts, agreed statements, or settled statements for any of the hearings that resulted in the appealed-from orders. Appellant had been specifically warned of this problem in connection with one of his prior appeals in this matter. (In re Marriage of Lopez (May 26, 2020, G057379) [nonpub. opn.].)

The absence of reporter's transcripts is not the only defect in the record. Appellant seeks review of four orders in this proceeding. Only three of those orders are contained in the record; the fourth is absent.

While we acknowledge a self-represented litigant's understanding of the rules on appeal is, as a practical matter, more limited than an experienced appellate attorney's and, whenever possible, will not strictly apply technical rules of procedure in a manner that deprives litigants of a hearing, we are nevertheless required to apply the Rules of Court and substantive rules of appellate review to a self-represented litigant's claims on appeal, just as we would to those litigants who are represented by trained legal counsel. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8...