Filed 11/21/23 A.R. v. Chris R. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

A.R., D080340 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 21FDV03545E) CHRIS R., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sharon L. Kalemkiarian, Judge. Affirmed.

Chris R., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

A.R., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Chris R. appeals from the trial court’s January 3, 2022 order denying his cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order against his then 17-year-old daughter A.R. (See Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) Chris and his

The court found that A.R. and Chris no longer lived together; since the July 2021 incident, neither of them had sought the other out or attempted to be near one another; and the incident was “over, and . . . done.” The court made its ruling without prejudice.

Chris is appearing in propria persona, as he did in the trial court.

Although self-represented, we may not excuse Chris from following the rules

A trial court’s judgment or order is presumed correct and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error on appeal. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [“ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ”]; accord Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608−609 (Jameson).) To make this showing, the appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to facts in the record and, if possible, authority to support the claim of error. (Multani v. Witkin & Neal (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1457; see Cal. Rules of Court,4 rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [briefs must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears”]; id., (a)(1)(B) [briefs must state each “point under a separate heading or subheading . . . and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority”].)

In addition, the appellant’s factual summary must be limited to “significant facts . . . in the record” (rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 539, fn. 1 [“it is well established that a reviewing court may not give any consideration to alleged facts that are outside of the record on appeal”]) and

The appellant also must present an “adequate record” for review. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574−575 (Ballard).) Rule 8.122(b) sets out the required contents of a clerk’s transcript. Among others, it “must” include “[a]ny . . . document filed . . . in the case in superior court” pertaining to the issues on appeal (rule 8.122(b)(3)(A)); and “[a]ny exhibit admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged” (id., (b)(3)(B)).

Here, Chris has failed to follow these basic rules of appellate procedure.

His statement of facts contains legal argument, includes factual assertions without citation to the record, and is decidedly one-sided. He also relies on asserted facts outside the record to support his arguments, including facts after the trial court made its ruling (i.e., his questioning the “validity” of one of the court reporters who prepared part of the clerk’s transcript). We are not permitted to consider evidence arising after the trial court’s decision “because an appeal reviews the correctness of a judgment [or order] as of the time of its rendition, upon a record of matters which were before the trial court for its consideration.” (In re James V. (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 300, 304.) And, while Chris cites two cases in his argument, he fails to explain how those cases support his position and demonstrate legal error by the court.

Chris’s arguments also show a misunderstanding of our role as an appellate court. A reviewing court does “ ‘not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses,’ ” as it is “ ‘ “not a second trier of fact.” ’ ” (Reynaud v. Technicolor Creative Services USA, Inc. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1015; accord Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 364.)

Most consequential is Chris’s failure to provide us with a proper record. (Ballard, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 574−575.) The record does not contain

Chris’s cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order, which is the subject of this appeal; nor does it contain the exhibits admitted at the January 3, 2022 evidentiary hearing, as shown by the court minutes, or the domestic violence restraining order A.R. filed on July 19, 2021. (See rule 8.122(b)(3)(A), (B).) Without a proper record of the relevant proceedings, we cannot determine what, if any, evidence was presented to the trial court resulting in the challenged order. Consequently, we must presume the evidence supports the court’s findings and its resulting order was proper based on those findings. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609; accord Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412 [“To the extent the court relied on documents not before us, our review is hampered. We cannot presume error from an incomplete record.”]; Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9 [“if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed”].)

DISPOSITION The trial court’s January 3, 2022 order is affirmed.

DO, J.

WE CONCUR: MCCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.