Filed 4/11/ 14 G ardley v. County of L os Ang eles Child S upport S erv i ces Dept. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

MICHAEL V. GARDLEY,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

Defendant and Respondent. B245246

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LD017096)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael

J. Convey, Jud ge. Affirmed.

Michael V. Gardley, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jennifer Coultas, Chief Attorney, and Richard H. Kim, Legal Counsel, for

Defendant and Respondent.

_______________________________2

The trial court denied the May 25, 2012 ex parte motion of appellant Michael V.

Gardley seeking relief from 13 years of child support based upon allegations of fraud,

intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, parental child

abduction, and loss of income. Gardley and Venus D. Gardley, were parties to a

dissolution action, case No. LD017096, filed in the 1990’s. No child support order was

entered in the dissolution action, but the Los Angeles County Child Support Services

Department (County) obtained support orders in two separate cases

-- Nos. D248016 and

BY450789. The court denied Gardley’s motion for relief in case No. LD017096 on the

basis that no child support order had been entered in that case, and any attempt to set

aside child support orders and refund payments should be pursued in case Nos. D248016

and BY450789

. The record in this appeal consists of a clerk ’ s transcript, supplemental clerk’s

transcript, and various documents in a motion to augment the record. Although

Gardley’s allegations are fact

- specific, complaining of conduct by courts, the County, and

Venu s Gardley, there is no reporter’ s transcript or suitable substitute, such as a settled

statement, of any of the proceedings in the three cases referred to by Gardley in his

appellate briefs.

We directe d the parties to address whether Gardley had presented an adequate

record on appeal. We conclude he has failed to do so. “ On appeal, we presume the

judgment is correct and we will not reverse unless the appellant establishes error occurred

and that the e rror was prejudicial. ( People v. Kelly (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1235, 1240.) ”

( People v. Mays (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 13, 33

- 34

. ) “ Where no repor ter’ s transcript has

been provided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the

ju dgment must be co nclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters. To put it

another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the

absence of error. ( Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 153

- 154.) ” ( Estate of

Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992

. )

The lack of a reporter’s transcript or settled statement of all pertinent proceedings

in the trial court is fatal to Gardley’s appeal. We are unable to assess the merits of3

Gardley’s assertions on appeal in the a bsence of a complete record of trial court

proceedings. “ In numerous situations, appellate courts have refused to reach the merits

of an appellant ’ s claims because no reporter ’ s transcript of a pertinent proceeding or a

suitable substitute was provided. ( Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295

- 1296

[attorney fee motion hearing]; Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574

- 575 (lead opn.

of Grodin, J.) [new trial motion hearing]; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91, 102

[hearing to determine whether co unsel was waived and the minor consented to informal

adjudication]; Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 447

[trial transcript when attorney fees sought]; Estate of Fain [ , supra, ] 75 Cal.App.4th [at

p.] 992 [surcharge hearing ]; Hodges v. Mark (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 651, 657 [nonsuit

motion where trial transcript not provided]; Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206

Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532 [reporter ’ s transcript fails to reflect content of special

instructions]; Buckhart v. San Fr ancisco Residential Rent etc., Bd. (1988) 197

Cal.App.3d 1032, 1036 [hearing on Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 pet ition ]; Sui v. Landi

(1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383, 385

- 386 [motion to dissolve p reliminary injunction hearing];

Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3 d 706, 713

- 714 [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v.

Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70, 71

- 73 [transcript of argument to the jury];

Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [failure to secure reporter ’ s transcript

o r settled statement].) ” ( Foust v. San J ose Const ruction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th

181, 186

- 187.)4 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to the County of Los

Angeles Child Support Services Department.

KRIEGLER, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J.

MINK

, J. *

* Retired j udge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.