Filed 9/21/23 Marriage of D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

In re Marriage of JOYCE D. and 

SCOTT D.

JOYCE D.,

Appellant,

v.

SCOTT D.,

Respondent.

 D080760

 (Super. Ct. No. DN174297)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

William Y. Wood, Judge. Affirmed.

Joyce D., in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

Joyce D. appeals a visitation and custody order. On appeal, she 

contends there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings 

that granting her custody, visitation, and conjoint therapy with her minor 

children would not be in their best interest. Because we presume the order is 

correct and because Joyce has not provided us with an adequate appellate 

record to show the trial court erred, we affirm. 
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY1

Joyce D. and her ex-husband, Scott D., have three children, two of 

whom are minors.2 On July 7, 2022, the trial court held an evidentiary 

hearing regarding Joyce and Scott’s custody and visitation dispute. Both 

parties represented themselves, and no court reporter was present.

Joyce, Scott, and five other witnesses testified at the hearing.3 The 

court admitted many of Joyce’s exhibits into evidence, including her two 

minor children’s report cards, photographs of her home and children, proof of 

one child’s COVID test, proofs of Joyce’s completion of substance abuse 

programs and various parenting and therapy classes, and Joyce’s resume

indicating her background as an attorney. The court did not admit into 

evidence Joyce’s other exhibits, which included letters about her character 

from various individuals and treating professionals, text messages, and a 

police report. 

1 The appellate record supplied by Joyce is insufficient to support a 

proper factual and procedural summary. For context, however, we provide

the following summary based on the trial court’s minute order summarizing

the evidentiary hearing and Dr. Clark Clipson’s psychological evaluation. Dr. 

Clipson’s June 16, 2022 report was designated by Joyce, but it appears that it 

was inadvertently omitted from the record on appeal. We augment this 

document on the court’s own motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.155(a)(1)(A).)

2 At the time of the July 7, 2022 evidentiary hearing, two of the three 

children were minors, but the court observed that one of the minors would 

“soon” turn the age of majority. Because more than a year has passed since 

the hearing, it is probable that one of the two children is no longer a minor. 

However, we are unable to make this determination on the incomplete record 

before us.

3 The minute order and limited record before us do not elucidate any

information about Joyce’s or the other witnesses’ testimony.
3

The court also admitted into evidence Dr. Clark Clipson’s April 2022 

psychological evaluation of Joyce. In that report, Dr. Clipson noted Joyce’s 

ongoing history of abusing alcohol until May 2018, prior posttraumatic stress 

disorder, chronic history of anxiety, and history of domestic violence in her 

relationship with Scott. Dr. Clipson noted that the validity of his

psychological evaluation was “limited” because of Joyce’s “defensive” 

approach to it. He observed that Joyce did not seem to understand the 

impact of her behavior on others and that her tendency to “act out in an 

impulsive . . . manner when she is frustrated . . . is worse when she is 

intoxicated.” Dr. Clipson recommended that Joyce and her children try again 

to participate in conjoint psychotherapy, that Joyce continue to abstain from 

the use of alcohol, and that she continue to participate in Alcoholics 

Anonymous. Dr. Clipson concluded that “[o]ther than the risk of being overprotective and/or intrusive in her children’s lives, [Joyce] [wa]s unlikely to 

have any other difficulties safely and effectively parenting her children.” 

According to the hearing’s minute order, the trial court “highlight[ed]” 

unspecified portions of Dr. Clipson’s report and the portions of Family Court 

Services reports that identified concerns about Joyce’s behavior, 

recommended she have no contact with the minors, and identified a lack of 

improvement of her mental health and behavior. The court noted the 

unusually large volume of filings in the case and that there was “a Criminal 

Protective Order component, and incarceration due to violations of the 

Criminal Protective Order.” The court further pointed to Joyce’s repeated 

violations of court orders, her unusual affect and behavior in court during the 

hearing, her “minimizing of her alcohol disorder,” and her “irrational 

obsession with requesting change to the custody and visitation orders in this 

case” as evidenced by her 16 ex parte hearing requests filed over the previous
4

three years. The court expressed it did not believe there had been any 

“revelation or clarity in [Joyce’s] thought processes” and that it was 

“inconceivable that [it] would bestow any parenting time to [Joyce]

considering the evidence provided.” The court ultimately found it was not in 

the minor children’s best interest to order visitation, custody, or conjoint 

therapy with Joyce, and it subsequently entered a Findings and Order After 

Hearing reiterating those findings. Joyce appeals. 

DISCUSSION

Joyce challenges the trial court’s findings that allowing her visitation, 

custody, and conjoint therapy with her minor children would not be in their 

best interest. We review this challenge for substantial evidence. (In re 

Marriage of Fajota (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497.) As we will explain, 

however, the appellate record is insufficient to show the trial court’s findings 

are not supported by substantial evidence. 

An appeal is not a second hearing or a trial. Rather, an appellate 

court’s role is to determine whether any error occurred, and if so, whether 

that error was prejudicial to the appellant. In doing so, we defer to the trial 

court’s credibility determinations and do not reweigh evidence. (In re

Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1531 [“[t]he Court of Appeal 

is not a second trier of fact”].) 

It is an appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record establishing 

error. (Parker v. Harbert (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1178.) Generally, an 

appellant must include in the record either a reporter’s transcript or a settled 

statement. (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 

181, 187 (Foust).) An incomplete record of the oral proceedings bars an 

appellant from claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the 

order in question. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 
5

121, 132 [if defendants “elected not to provide a reporter’s transcript of the 

trial proceedings,” they “have no basis upon which to argue that the evidence 

adduced at trial was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding”]; 

Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 [“Without a complete 

record, we are unable to determine whether substantial evidence supported 

the implied findings underlying the trial court’s order.”]; Foust, at p. 187

[“ ‘Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue 

be resolved against [appellant].’ ”].) These rules of appellate procedure apply 

regardless of whether an appellant is represented by counsel or is selfrepresented. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.)

Here, the trial court made express findings regarding the minor 

children’s best interest based on its evaluation of the evidence and the 

witnesses’ testimony at the hearing. The appellate record before us, however,

is insufficient to establish that those findings are unsupported by substantial 

evidence. Specifically, the record consists only of Joyce’s declarations4 and 

exhibits, Dr. Clipson’s report, a reporter’s transcript of a different hearing, 

the court’s July 7, 2022 minute order, and the July 29, 2022 Findings and 

Order After Hearing. It does not include a reporter’s transcript or a settled 

statement for the order at issue. Thus, on this limited and insufficient 

record, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of Joyce’s substantial 

evidence challenge and must instead “presume the trial court acted 

4 Three days before oral argument in this appeal, Joyce filed a “motion to 

correct” the record by augmenting it with her June 21, 2022 declaration, 

which she claimed was incorrectly omitted from the Clerk’s Transcript. We 

agreed to consider Joyce’s motion with the appeal and now grant it. 
6

properly.”5 (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 576 [affirming 

domestic violence restraining order where appellant failed to provide 

transcript of oral proceedings].) 

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Joyce is to bear her own costs. 

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O’ROURKE, J.

5 We further observe that an appellant is bound by additional rules of 

appellate procedure designed to facilitate our review of claims of reversible 

error. For example, “[a]ppellate briefs must provide argument and legal 

authority for the positions taken. ‘When an appellant fails to raise a point, or 

asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to 

authority, we treat the point as waived.’ ” (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners 

Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862; see Dabney v. Dabney (2002) 104 

Cal.App.4th 379, 384 [court disregards argument for which no authority is 

furnished].) Here, Joyce’s appellate briefing does not comply with those 

requirements. Thus, we need not consider the numerous specific complaints 

she lists in her opening brief, which appear to include various disagreements 

about the court’s evidentiary rulings and the weight given to particular 

evidence, Judge Wood’s alleged “bias” at the hearing, and specific factual 

contentions—all of which lack reasoned argument and citations to authority. 

Moreover, as discussed previously, without a sufficient record to evaluate 

these arguments, we are unable do so.