Ras v. Ras CA2/5

Filed 3/12/25 Ras v. Ras CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

ALEXANDRA RAS, B335264

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. v. 22STFL09811, 22STRO05096) SHAWN RAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Michelle L. Kazadi, Judge. Affirmed. Shawn Ras, self-represented litigant, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Shawn Ras appeals from the trial court’s November 1, 2023, orders granting plaintiff Alexandra Ras’s request for domestic violence restraining and child custody. In his opening brief, defendant raises several issues, but the only relief he requests is reversal of “the trial court’s decision to grant sole custody to the [plaintiff][1] and reinstate the original joint custody arrangement.” According to defendant, “[t]he decision to modify custody was not supported by new evidence or consideration of the child’s best interests. Therefore, restoring joint custody will ensure the child’s emotional and psychological well-being, stability, and continuity in both parents’ lives.” A fundamental rule of appellate review is that an appealed judgment is presumed correct. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140 (Ketchum).) Where the record is silent, “‘“error must be affirmatively shown.”’” (Ibid.) To overcome this presumption, “a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; see Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1141.) Where the appellant fails to provide an adequate record of the challenged proceedings, we must presume that the appealed judgment or order is correct and, on that basis, affirm. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295–1296; Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 1141.) Where a reporter’s transcript has not been provided and the purported error is not apparent on the face of the existing record, “the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters. To put it another way, it is presumed