Filed 8/28/18 Marriage of Lizardo and Sandeen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Plumas)

—-

In re the Marriage of ANNE LIZARDO and STEPHEN SANDEEN. C081718

ANNE LIZARDO,

Respondent,

v.

STEPHEN SANDEEN,

Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. FFL141560)

Stephen Sandeen, appellant appearing in propria persona, appeals from a judgment dissolving his marriage to Anne Lizardo and awarding Lizardo sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor children. Sandeen has filed a lengthy opening brief that challenges everything from the trial court’s jurisdiction over his case to the court’s qualifications and lack of bias. He fails to support what appear to be his key claims with either meaningful citations to the record or any relevant authority.

Although he asks that we consider his “submissions liberally” and use our “common sense to determine the relief that [he] desire[s]” (emphasis removed) we cannot overlook the fact that Sandeen completely abdicates his well-settled duty as appellant to affirmatively show error of any kind in the proceedings below. His brief does little more than express frustration with the family court and its processes. He asks this court to order that he be given “50/50 equal shared parenting as the eventual goal” but does not support this request; instead, he repeatedly claims only that the judgment is void for a large list of reasons that are unsupported by the record and devoid of any relevant authority.

Accordingly, we hold that Sandeen has forfeited any claim of error and affirm the judgment without reaching the merits.

DISCUSSION

A lower court’s judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766.) Although Lizardo did not file a (respondent’s) brief, this does not amount to a concession of error. (Conness v. Satram (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 197, 200, fn. 3; In re Bryce C. (1995) 12 Cal.4th 226, 232-233; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)

Sandeen’s precise legal claims are not clear, and he fails to cite relevant authority for his claims, to the extent that we can decipher them. “We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error.” (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948.) “To demonstrate error, 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.) Sandeen does not describe how the purported authorities contained in the footnotes of his opening brief support his legal analysis, nor is that legal analysis itself meaningful.

Further, Sandeen has failed to “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) “If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been waived.” (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) Although Sandeen’s briefing contains some broad citations to the record, the cited portions of the record do not support any points that are relevant to valid legal arguments. This court does not perform an independent, unassisted review of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522.)

Further, Sandeen has in large part ignored the requirement that he present each point separately in the opening brief under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to be made. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, fn. 4.) Appellants must “present their cause systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised . . . of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass.” (Landa v. Steinberg (1932) 126 Cal.App. 324, 325; accord, Opdyk, supra, at p. 1830, fn. 4.)

These rules of appellate procedure apply to Sandeen despite his choice to represent himself on appeal. (McComber v. Wells, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 523.) The rules are critical, because without a detailed presentation that demonstrates prejudicial error we cannot reverse. Accordingly, Sandeen has forfeited his claims of error and we affirm without further discussion thereof. (See Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 949.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Appellant shall pay respondent’s costs of this appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

/s/

Duarte, J.

We concur:

/s/

Raye, P. J.

/s/

Butz, J.