Filed 11/19/19 State of South Carolina v. Iandiorio CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS IANDIORIO,

Defendant and Respondent,

AMBER WESSON,

Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

G056624

(Super. Ct. No. 12FL103991)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Paul T. Minerich, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

No appearance for Plaintiff.

No appearance for Respondent.

Amber Wesson, in pro. per., for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

This is an appeal by a custodial parent in California from a $162 a month child support order against an out-of-state unemployed noncustodial parent. The custodial parent believes the order is too low, but has not furnished us a sufficient record of the hearing at which the order was made to arrive at that conclusion. Nor has she made any legal argument as to how the order might be the result of legal error or abuse of discretion by the trial judge. We are forced to affirm for these procedural deficiencies.

Specifically, there is no reporter’s transcript of the proceedings below, nor a settled statement of the relevant testimony. Nor is there a clerk’s transcript or appellant’s appendix. Indeed, because of the paucity of the record on appeal, we do not even know exactly how the State of South Carolina became involved in the case. It appears that because this litigation began in California between two California residents, the litigation stayed here after one of the litigants moved to another state. Not having been given any information otherwise, we proceed on the assumption California courts continue to have jurisdiction over this matter.

Because of the absence of anything resembling an adequate appellate record, we must affirm the order. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296.)

But we must also stress what we do not decide. The very nature of child support envisions the possibility of modification if there has been a material change of circumstances. (In re Marriage of Williams (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1234.) If Wesson can show a material change in future, she is free to try again.

Thus, our opinion today is without prejudice to Wesson if she brings (say, represented by an attorney or legal clinic doing pro bono work), another motion for modification based on a showing that Iandiorio has had increased income since the last child support order made. Of course, our opinion is also without prejudice to Iandorio to show no such increase should Wesson bring such a motion for modification.

 

Because Iandiorio has not filed a respondent’s brief, there are no costs on appeal to award, so Wesson will simply bear her own.

BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

GOETHALS, J.