Court Opinion

ID: 9406796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 19:03:25.894929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.309463
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/3/23 Shasta County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Lanzit CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                        (Shasta)
                                                            ----

 SHASTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD                                                             C096790
 SUPPORT SERVICES,
                                                                                     (Super. Ct. No. 29049)
                    Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 SARAH LANZIT,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Sarah Lanzit, appellant, appearing in propria persona, appeals from a court order
for child support. Appellant filed a six-page opening brief, with attachments. Unfamiliar
with the principles of law governing the trial court’s ruling and the limited scope of
appellate review, appellant’s brief does little more than demonstrate her frustration with
the judicial process. It is, indeed, difficult even to discern what her claim or claims on
appeal might be; she has thus failed to preserve them.
         It is a fundamental principle of the appellate procedure that a trial court order or
judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct, and the burden is on an appellant to
affirmatively demonstrate that the trial court committed an error that justifies the reversal

                                                             1
of the order or judgment. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609; Denham v.
Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008)
164 Cal.App.4th 814, 822.) To affirmatively show that error occurred, an “appellant
must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to
facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th
396, 408; see Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685
[“appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to
the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority”].) “[C]onclusory claims of error
will fail.” (In re S.C., at p. 408.)
       Self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must
comply with the rules of procedure and appellant’s brief fails on all of these grounds.
(See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; Kobayashi v. Superior Court
(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) Under the circumstances, appellant has forfeited her
claims of error.

                                       DISPOSITION
               The trial court’s order is affirmed. The parties each shall bear their own
costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)

                                                  HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

RENNER, J.

EARL, J.

                                              2