Rahh v. Robinson CA2/4

Filed 9/20/24 Rahh v. Robinson CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

ARSHAAD KIONGOZI UJUZI RAHH, B333466

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STPT01825) v.

SABRINA K. ROBINSON,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bradley S. Phillips, Judge. Affirmed. Arshaad Kiongozi Ujuzi Rahh, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sabrina K. Robinson, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Arshaad Kiongozi Ujuzi Rahh (Rahh) appeals from the denial of his request for joint legal and joint physical custody of a child he had with respondent Sabrina K. Robinson (Robinson). We conclude Rahh has not carried his burden on appeal to provide an adequate record or demonstrate the court erred in denying his request. Therefore, we affirm the order denying his request for joint legal and joint physical custody.

DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards “We review custody and visitation orders for an abuse of discretion,” applying the substantial evidence standard to the trial court’s factual findings and considering de novo any issues of statutory interpretation. (Jaime G. v. H.L. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 794, 805.) “‘A court abuses its discretion in making a child custody order if there is no reasonable basis on which it could conclude that its decision advanced the best interests of the child. [Citation.] A court also abuses its discretion if it applies improper criteria or makes incorrect legal assumptions. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (S.Y. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 324, 333.) “‘An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court exceeds the bounds of reason; even if we disagree with the trial court’s determination, we uphold the determination so long as it is reasonable. [Citation.] We do not reverse unless a trial court’s determination is arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.’” (Id. at pp. 333– 334.)