Court Opinion

ID: 9919243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 19:02:23.818574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:33.793387
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/17/24 County of San Diego v. J.P. 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,                                                 D081668

           Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. 20DF002426C)

 J.P.,

           Appellant,

 M.L.,

          Respondent.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Lizbet Munoz, Commissioner. Affirmed.
         J.P., in pro. per., for Appellant.
         No appearance for Respondents.
                         MEMORANDUM OPINION1
      In an action by the San Diego Department of Child Support Services
(DCSS), J.P. (Father) was ordered on June 23, 2022 to pay M.L. (Mother)
nonguideline child support for their minor child in the amount of $820.00
each month, “effective 06-01-22.” According to the minutes and order, Father
was not present at the June 23, 2022 hearing.
      On December 20, 2022, the court granted DCSS’s ex parte request to
correct the June 23, 2022 order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

473, subdivision (d),2 to reflect the court’s order that Father was to pay child
support in the monthly amount of $820, “effective 6/1/2021.” On December
15, 2022, DCSS provided notice to Father that the agency intended to appear
ex parte with the date and time of the hearing. Specifically, a DCSS law
clerk spoke with Father’s attorney of record, Brooke Soliz Chandler, who
stated “[s]he d[id] not oppose the County’s motion.”

      Father appeals the court’s December 20, 2022 order.3 In his five-
paragraph opening brief on appeal, Father’s argument in its entirety is that

1    We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California
Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

2     All further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil
Procedure. Subdivision (d) of section 473 provides: “The court may, upon
motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its
judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order
directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party,
set aside any void judgment or order.”

3     The postjudgment order is appealable pursuant to section 904.1,
subdivision (a)(2). (See Ames v. Paley (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 668, 672, fn. 3
[grant of § 473, subd. (d), motion is appealable pursuant to § 904.1,
subd. (a)(2).].)

                                        2
the court’s ex parte order correcting the effective date of child support “is a
clerical mistake” because his “income and expense reports from 5-20-21
clearly reveal [Father] simply did not make enough wages to support an $820
payment each month.” He further asserts he has been in compliance with
child support payments “and even accrued a $1000 positive arrears for some
time in order to maintain good standing with child support payments.” He
requests that “all arrears payments due to the clerical error be removed
(including late fees and interest fees) and any over payment made by [him]
due to the error be refunded.”
          DCSS filed a letter informing us “that after a thorough review of
[Father’s] opening brief and the record on appeal,” DCSS will not file a
respondent’s brief in this matter.” Although no respondent’s brief has been
filed, Father “ ‘still bears the “affirmative burden to show error whether or
not the respondent’s brief has been filed.” ’ ” (In re Marriage of F.M. & M.M.
(2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 106, 110, fn. 1.) Appellate courts approach every
appeal with the presumption the appealed judgment is correct. (See Jameson
v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) To succeed on appeal, Father has
the burden of demonstrating “that the trial court committed an error that
justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Ibid.) He retains this burden even
though his appeal is unopposed. (In re Marriage of F.M. & M.M., at p. 110,
fn. 1.)
          Although we appreciate the challenges of appearing as a self-
represented litigant, Father “is entitled to the same, but no greater,
consideration” as any other attorney or litigant on appeal and is required to
follow the rules. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638.) The
reviewing court is not required to develop appellant’s arguments or search
the record for supporting evidence and may instead treat arguments that are

                                          3
not developed or supported by adequate citations to the record as waived.
(ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1011.)
      Father has not met his burden on appeal to show reversible error. He
asserts facts without citation to the record and makes arguments without
citation to law. His arguments essentially ask us to reweigh the evidence on
the adequacy of his income and expenses to support the child support order,
which we do not do on appeal. (Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238,
1246 [On appeal, “[w]e do not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of
witnesses.”]; ibid. [“We are ‘not a second trier of fact.’ ”].) We therefore
affirm.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The December 20, 2022 order is affirmed.

                                                                               DO, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                         4