Filed 8/2/23 Marriage of Pallais CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re the Marriage of CARLOS A. 

PALLAIS and ALAYA PALLAISPARISH.

CARLOS A. PALLAIS, 

Appellant,

v.

ALAYA PALLAIS-PARISH,

Respondent.

 A165281

 (Sonoma County

 Super. Ct. No. SFL085566)

Carlos A. Pallais (father), in propria persona, appeals from the trial 

court’s postjudgment order in his dissolution action against Alaya PallaisParish (mother). The Sonoma County Superior Court awarded mother child 

support and ordered coparent counseling, both of which father argues must 

be stricken due to the trial court’s alleged failure to consider his inability to 

pay and mother’s ability to pay. Father elected to proceed on appeal without 

a record of the oral proceedings in the trial court. By filing his appeal 

without a reporter’s transcript or equivalent substitute, father has provided 

us with an inadequate record. Therefore, we are unable to conduct a 

meaningful appellate review and reject each of father’s arguments. 

Accordingly, we affirm.
2

I. BACKGROUND

Our ability to understand fully the factual and procedural history of 

this case is hampered because of the sparse record on appeal, consisting of 

only father’s opening brief and a clerk’s transcript.1 The clerk’s transcript on 

appeal is meager, containing only nine documents, including father’s income 

and expense declaration. The record does not include a reporter’s transcript

or a respondent’s appendix, nor was a respondent’s brief filed. We therefore 

summarize the factual and procedural history as best we can based on the 

record before us.

Father is a server at a restaurant in Sonoma, and mother is 

unemployed. They were married on December 30, 2015, and have one child. 

They separated on March 18, 2018, and father filed a petition for dissolution 

of marriage on March 11, 2020. An attorney briefly represented father from 

the beginning of the proceedings in December 2020 until January 2021. An 

attorney represented mother from September 2020 until April 2021, and both 

parties appear to have continued since without legal representation.

The Sonoma County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) 

filed a motion to modify father’s monthly child support payment of $0 ordered 

on April 1, 2021, to the guideline amount of $681 generated based on father’s 

income and expense declaration of January 4, 2022. The trial court modified 

the child support to $650 on April 19, 2022, deviating from the guideline 

1 Father has also filed his brief with an “Exhibit A” attached to the end 

of the brief, which appears to be his response to the motion for child support 

at issue in this case. Father designated this document for inclusion in the 

record on appeal, but it appears the clerk did not include it. Although it 

would not impact the resolution of the issues on appeal in this case, for future 

reference, father should have served and filed a notice in the superior court to 

request preparation, certification, and transmission of the omitted document. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(b).)
3

calculation in the best interests of the child. The trial court also ordered that 

father and mother share joint custody of the child and that both parties 

participate in coparent counseling. Father filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Appellate courts review child support awards, including a 

determination whether to grant or deny a request for modification of child 

support, for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Hein (2020)

52 Cal.App.5th 519, 529 (Hein).) The abuse of discretion standard also 

applies to an appellate court’s review of custody and visitation orders. (In re 

Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32.)

“Generally, a trial court abuses its discretion if there is no reasonable 

basis on which the court could conclude its decision advanced the best 

interests of the child. [Citation.] ‘Under this test, we must uphold the trial 

court[’s] “ruling if it is correct on any basis, regardless of whether such basis 

was actually invoked.” ’ ” (Chalmers v. Hirschkop (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th

289, 299.) “When conducting an abuse of discretion review, appellate courts 

consider (1) whether the trial court’s factual findings are supported by 

substantial evidence, (2) whether the trial court followed applicable legal 

principles, and (3) whether the trial court reasonably exercised its 

discretionary authority—that is, whether any judge reasonably could have 

made such an order.” (Hein, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 529; In re Marriage 

of Morton (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1025, 1039.) “Child support awards are 

highly regulated by the statewide uniform guideline ([Fam. Code,] § 4055) 

and, as a result, the only discretion trial courts possess is the discretion 

provided by statute or rule.” (Hein, at p. 529.) 
4

B. Adequacy of Record

We must first address the inadequacy of the record on appeal, because 

the deficiencies of this record necessarily limit the scope of our review. “[I]t is 

settled that: ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All 

intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to 

which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not 

only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the 

constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court 

(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) There is an “obligation as appellant to present a 

complete record for appellate review, and in the absence of a required 

reporter’s transcript and other documents, we presume the judgment is 

correct.” (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.) “The effect 

of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no 

reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the 

sufficiency of the evidence.” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992.)

It is also the appellant’s burden to include in the brief a summary of all 

the evidence with citations to the record and argument in support of any 

claim of error supported by citation to legal authority. (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C).) These rules apply equally to litigants who choose to 

represent themselves, and the failure to comply with any one of them may 

result in the waiver of a claim of error, or a determination that the appellant 

has failed to meet the burden to demonstrate error on appeal. (See Osgood v. 

Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435.)

In order to evaluate father’s challenge to the lower court’s orders, we 

require an adequate record on appeal. But as noted, father did not include a 

reporter’s transcript; we have no information as to the oral proceedings, 

declarations, or documentary evidence presented by him or by mother in open 
5

court. In lieu of a reporter’s transcript, father could have provided an agreed 

statement or a settled statement, but he did not submit any such alternative. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.134 & 8.137.) Nor does it appear any party 

requested, or the court prepared, a statement of decision pursuant to Code of 

Civil Procedure section 632, which would have provided us with the trial 

court’s reasoning and analysis on disputed issues. (City and County of San 

Francisco v. H.H. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 531, 544.) Because there is no 

statement of decision, we presume the trial court made all factual findings 

necessary to support the order. (In re Marriage of McHugh (2014) 231 

Cal.App.4th 1238, 1248.)

Moreover, father’s brief does not provide an adequate summary of the 

procedural facts or of the evidence submitted by both parties related to the 

request for modification of support, and it contains numerous assertions of 

law and fact that are not supported by citations to authority or facts in the 

record. We acknowledge that father is representing himself in this appeal 

and has not had the formal legal training that would be beneficial in 

advocating his position. However, the rules of civil procedure apply with 

equal force to parties in propria persona as they do those represented by 

attorneys. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985.)

As we will explain, these defects, combined with the presumptions in 

favor of the judgment, lead us to conclude that father has failed to meet his 

burden of demonstrating error.

First, father contends the trial court did not properly account for

mother’s income from all sources and, thus, erred in calculating the amount 

of child support owed. Father claims that the trial court determined the child 

support after disregarding evidence of mother’s alleged by-choice 

unemployment and undisclosed financial support from her parents, and 
6

failed to question mother about her income from all sources, whether she was 

still enrolled in school, and how she was paying for private university 

schooling. Father references the hearing that took place on April 19, 2022, at 

which the trial court allegedly chose not to question mother. However, father

fails to cite to the record to support this contention, and thus we are unable to 

meaningfully review this assertion. Moreover, because we do not have the 

transcript from the hearing or a statement of decision, there is no basis to 

know what happened, what evidence was presented, the reasons for the trial 

court’s ruling, or whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Second, father argues that the trial court erred in calculating the child 

support and ordering coparent counseling without acknowledging his 

financial hardships. Father cites to exhibit A of his opening brief, his own 

response to DCSS’s motion, in which he lists his expenses and claims a 

negative disposable income. As noted previously, this document appears to 

have been omitted from the clerk’s transcript on appeal. Even if father had 

corrected the omission, however, and we considered his evidence, the lack of a 

reporter’s transcript or statement of decision still prevents father from 

showing an abuse of discretion. In the absence of an affirmative showing to 

the contrary in the record, we must presume the trial court considered all of 

the evidence, including father’s evidence, and found sufficient evidence to 

support the child support calculation and coparent counseling order.

Finally, father argues that the trial court violated his constitutional 

due process rights by entering judgment without accounting for mother’s 

income and father’s economic disadvantages. Father devotes the majority of 

this section of his brief to reiterating the same issues discussed earlier in his 

brief, and claims that those issues constitute a violation of his right to 

fairness and justice under the Fourteenth Amendment. This cursory 
7

argument is unavailing because like the first two issues, it is unsupported by 

references to the record and cites authorities without demonstrating the 

relevance of the citations to his argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.204(a)(1)(B), (C); see Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 

63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 [merely setting forth general legal principles 

without specifically demonstrating how they establish error is insufficient to 

raise a cognizable issue on appeal].) Moreover, without the transcript of the 

hearing, we cannot assess whether father was deprived of due process or a 

fair hearing.

In sum, father’s claims are forfeited because he has not supported them 

with citations to the record or with any meaningful argument. Further, 

because father has failed to provide an adequate record from which we may 

evaluate his claims that the trial court erred in rendering its custody and 

support determinations, we must resolve those claims against him.

III. DISPOSITION

The trial court’s orders are affirmed. The parties are to bear their own 

costs on appeal.2

2 Because mother failed to file a respondent’s brief, we decline to award 

her costs as the prevailing party. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
8

MARGULIES, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUMES, P. J.

BOWEN, J.*

A165281

In re Marriage of Pallais and Pallais-Parish

 Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.