IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In re the Parenting and Support of: E.J.R. (DOB: 07-23-10), Minor child. MICHAEL JOHN RODERICK, JR., Appellant,

v. BRENDAJEANNE LYNN, Respondent. No. 70531-8-1 r~ \ , •• <•-.; DIVISION ONE <--"'. ', '-"•< -••••

UNPUBLISHED FILED: January 20, 2015 

### cP ^5

Cox, J. - Michael RoderickJr. appeals thetrial court's ordersproviding for 

### thecustody and supportofhis daughter, E.J.R. Roderick's failure tocomplywith the Rules ofAppellate Procedure orprovide an adequate record precludes 

### review ofmany ofhis claims, andhis remaining claims arewithoutmerit. We affirm the trial court's orders. 

### Roderick and Brenda Lynn are the parents ofE.J.R., who was born in July 

### 2010. According toLynn, after E.J.R.'s birth, Roderick became increasingly 

### angry and paranoid. He accused Lynn ofcheating on him, monitored herdaily movements, and yelled attheir neighbors through thewalls in themiddle ofthe 

### night. He also displayed erratic behavioratwork. In August2011, Lynn and Roderick separated and E.J.R. lived with Lynn while Roderick visited regularly.No. 70531-8-1/2 

### In May 2012, Roderick was returning E.J.R. to Lynn's house when one of Lynn's neighbors greeted Roderick and E.J.R. Roderick became agitated, telling 

### the neighborto get away from E.J.R. and threatening to file for a restraining order. When Lynnreached to take E.J.R. from Roderick's arms, Roderick ran into the street, nearly falling withthe child. He became increasingly frantic, 

### accusing Lynn's family ofusing drugs and trying to plot against him. Lynn called
911. 

### On June 21, 2012, Lynn filed a petition for a residential schedule and child 

### support. Trial on the petition began on May 30, 2013. Lynn was representedby counsel and Roderick appeared pro se. Thetrial court heard the testimony of 

### Lynn and Roderick and reviewed 58exhibits, afterwhich itentered findings of fact and conclusions oflaw, a parenting plan and an order ofchild support. The 

### parenting plan providedfor Lynn to remain E.J.R.'s custodial parentand limited Roderick's residential time under RCW26.09.191(3) due to Roderick's "long-term 

### emotional orphysical impairmentwhich interferes with theperformance of 

### parenting functions."1 The plan provided forthree phases ofincreasing visitation, contingentupon Roderick participating in amental health evaluation and treatment. The trial court found that itwas necessary to restrict Roderick's 

### contactwith E.J.R. because "[t]hefather appears to have an untreated mental illness that results in erratic and aggressive behavior" and "[t]here is a concern 

### the[sic] hemay inadvertently harm thechild ifhis mental health issues are

Clerk's Papers at 366.No. 70531-8-1/3 

### untreated."2 The trial court also imputed Roderick's net monthly income at minimumwage and required Roderick to pay $245.43 per month in child support. Proceeding pro se, Roderick appeals the trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law and parenting plan. Roderick also appeals the trial court's order of child support, but does not assign error to the order or address it in his briefs. Accordingly, the issue is waived.3 Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with all procedural rules on appeal.4 An appellant must provide "argument in support ofthe issues presented for review, together with citations to 

### legal authority and references to relevant parts of the record."5 It is also the appellant's burden to provide a record sufficient to review the issues raised on 

### appeal.6 Failure to do so may preclude appellate review.7 With few exceptions, Roderick has failed to comply with these requirements. He has not provided a verbatim report ofproceedings forthe trial, and failed to designate any of the trial exhibits for review. Roderick's briefing contains no citations to the record and minimal references to relevant authority. We address his claims to the extent possible given the limits ofthe record and the legal analysis provided.

2Clerk's Papers at 363, 369. 3 RAP 10.3(a)(4). 4In re Marriage of Olson. 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993). 5RAP 10.3(a)(6). 6Story v. Shelter Bay Co., 52 Wn. App. 334, 345, 760 P.2d 368 (1988). 7State v. Marintorres. 93 Wn. App. 442, 452, 969 P.2d 501 (1999). 3No. 70531-8-1/4

COMPETENCY AND REPRESENTATION Roderick argues the trial court erred infailing to determine whether he
was competentto participate inthe proceedings. He asserts the trial court was 

### obligated to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) or counsel at public expense. Roderick additionally claims that the trial court should have appointed a GAL or a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) to represent E.J.R.'s interests. Whenever the issue of a party's competence to understand the legal 

### proceedings is raised, the trial court should conduct a hearing to determine 

### whetherthe party ismentally competent orrequires a GAL.8 This hearing must allow the alleged incapacitated person the opportunity to present evidence as to 

### theirmental capacity.9 Atrial court should appoint a GAL when it is "reasonably 

### convinced that a party litigant is notcompetent, understandingly and intelligently, 

### tocomprehend the significance oflegal proceedings and theeffect and relationship ofsuchproceedings in terms ofthe bestinterests ofsuchparty 

### litigant."10 We review atrial court's determination oftheneed for aGALfor an abuse of discretion.11 A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is 

### manifestly unreasonable orbased on untenable grounds.12 It is clearfrom the clerk's minutes that the trial court addressed the issue 

### ofRoderick's competency on thefirst day oftrial anddenied theappointmentofa GAL. However, because Roderickdoes notprovide a transcript of the trial, we 8Vo v. Pham. 81 Wn. App. 781, 786, 916 P.2d 462 (1996). 9id 

### 10]d at 790(citing Graham v. Graham, 40Wn.2d 64, 66-67, 240 P.2d 564 (1952)).11 jd at 784. 12 Inre Marriage ofLittlefield. 133 Wn.2d 39, 46-47, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997). 4No. 70531-8-1/5

cannot determine whether Roderick presented evidence as to his mental capacity or whether the trial court abused its discretion indetermining he was capable of understanding the proceedings. "A trial court'sjudgment is presumed to be correct and should be sustained absent an affirmative showing oferror."13 Moreover, Roderick was not entitled to counsel at public expense. It is 

### well settled that the right to counsel does not extend to a parent in a private child custody proceeding.14 Though Roderick claims he has a right to counsel at publicexpense under the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA), the federal regulation to which Roderick cites pertains to civil suits fordiscrimination, not any proceeding in which a party alleges a disability. 

### Finally, Roderickfails to establish that the trial court erred in failing to appoint a GAL or CASAfor E.J.R. In any proceeding regarding the determination of a parenting plan or residential schedule, a trial court has the 

### discretion to appoint a GAL orCASAto represent the interests of a minor child when the court believes such an appointment is necessary to protect the best 

### interests of the child.15 Though the clerk's minutes indicate that the trial court 

### considered and rejected Roderick's request for a GAL orCASA for E.J.R., Roderick's failure to provide a transcript of the hearing is again fatal to hisclaim oferror. And because Roderick's claim that due process entitles E.J.R. to 

### appointment of a GAL orCASA isunsupported by any legal authority oranalysis,

we decline to consider itany further.
13 State v. Wade. 138 Wn.2d 460, 464, 979 P.2d 850 (1999). 14 In re Marriage of King, 162 Wn.2d 378, 397-98, 174 P.3d 659 (2007). 15RCW26.12.175(1)(a). 5No. 70531-8-1/6

PARENTING PLAN In determining a parenting plan, the trial court exercises broad discretion.16 A trial court's decision regarding custody, visitation or parental 

### decision-making will not be overturned absent abuse of that discretion.17 We review the trial court's findings of fact to determine whether substantial evidence 

### supports the findings.18 We do not reviewthe trialcourt's credibility 

### determinations, nor do we weighconflicting evidence.19 Unchallengedfindings of fact are verities on appeal.20 Roderick contends the trial court erred in failing to consider each ofthe factors enumerated in RCW 26.09.520. But RCW 26.09.520 pertains to court orders permitting a parent to relocate with a child. Because there is no evidence inthe record that either parent requested to relocate with the child, there was no need for the trial court to address the RCW 26.09.520 factors. Roderick argues that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to restrict his contact with E.J.R. But the phased-in visitation plan was supported by the trial court's findings that Roderick engaged in "erratic, violent and 

### unpredictable behavior" and couldinadvertently harm E.J.R. withouttreatment for his mental health issues. To the extent that Roderick attempts to challenge the 

### findings as unsupported by the evidence, because he has failed to provide a record ofthe evidence presented at trial and to properly support his claims of 16 In re Marriage of Kovacs. 121 Wn.2d 795, 801, 854 P.2d 629 (1993). 17 In re Marriage of Rich. 80 Wn. App. 252, 258, 907 P.2d 1234 (1996). 18 Sunnvside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie, 111 Wn. App. 209, 214, 43 P.3d 1277 (2002). 19 Rich, 80 Wn. App. at 259. 20 In re Marriage of Brewer. 137 Wn.2d 756, 766, 976 P.2d 102 (1999). 6No. 70531-8-1/7

error with argument based on evidence inthe trial record, the challenged findings
must be treated as verities.21 Roderick claims that the trial failed to consider E.J.R.'s best interests when establishing the parenting plan. "[T]he best interests ofthe child shall be the standard by which the court determines and allocates the parents' parental 

### responsibilities."22 But it is clearfrom the language of the parenting plan that the trial court restricted Roderick's contact with E.J.R. based on an assessment of what was in E.J.R.'s best interests. Roderick claims that the parenting plan violated his right to due process 

### and equal protection and that the proceedings violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Because Roderick fails to cite any authority to support these assertions or provide any other argument beyond these statements, we do not address these claims any further. 

### Citing In re Marriage of Jensen-Branch,23 Roderick claims that the trial court violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by (1) 

### granting Lynn sole decision-making authority with regards to E.J.R.'s religious upbringing and (2) denying him the right to move with E.J.R. to Israel. But Jensen-Branch is not controlling here. There, the trial court expressly prohibited the father from providing "any religious education or indoctrination" to his

21 In re Parentage &Custody ofA.F.J., 161 Wn. App. 803, 806 n.2, 260 P.3d 889 (2011). 22 RCW 26.09.002. 23 78 Wn. App. 482, 899 P.2d 803 (1995). 7No. 70531-8-1/8 children.24 This court held that such an express restriction implicates freedom of religion and may be imposed "only upon a substantial showing ofpotential or actual harm to the children
. . . ,"25 Here, Roderick is not prohibited from sharing his faith with E.J.R. And while the trial court limited Roderick's contact with E.J.R., this is based on the trial court's finding that Roderick's untreated mental health condition endangered E.J.R., not an attempt to abridge Roderick's religious freedom. Absent express restrictions on religious teachings, a trial 

### court's decision granting a parent sole decision-making authority over religion is reviewed for an abuse ofdiscretion.26 Roderick does not demonstrate the trial
court abused its discretion. 

### Finally, Roderick contends that the trial court erred when it: (1) referred to him as "paranoid and delusional;" (2) interrupted his opening statement, 

### testimony and cross-examination ofwitnesses; (3) allowed Lynn to present 

### perjuredtestimony; (4)failed to listen to the testimony; (5) sustained Lynn's objections; (6)failed to allow him to subpoena a federal agent; (7) refused to admitexpert testimony; and (8) denied his motion to continue the trial based on his mental health. We decline to review these claims because Roderick fails to 

### support them with an adequate record or meaningful legal analysis. ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL 

### Lynn requests attorney fees incurred in defending this appeal pursuantto RCW 26.09.140. Butthe plain language ofchapter 26.09 RCW applies to the

24 id at 483. 25 Id 26 id at 490. 8No. 70531-8-1/9 

### "dissolution ofmarriage."27 Because Roderick and Lynn were not married, Lynn is not entitled to an award offees under RCW 26.09.140. Lynnalso requests fees based on Roderick's intransigence. While Roderick's appeal is without merit, his conduct in this court has not been intransigent. We decline to award fees on this basis. We affirm all ofthe challenged orders. 

# £rt,ir

WE CONCUR: 

# TV.cKqsf^r >p(?,^(L..,V27 See, §jl, Fosterv. Thilqes. 61 Wn. App. 880, 887-88, 812 P.2d 523 

### (1991) (parties tocommitted intimate relationships are notentitled to fees under RCW26.09.140 because statute grants attorney fees onlywhere there has been marital relationship between the parties). 9