B.M. v. E.P. CA6

Filed 4/14/25 B.M. v. E.P. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

B.M., H051903 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23EA000132)

v.

E.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Representing herself, E.P.2 appeals from a three-year elder abuse restraining order entered against her after a hearing. The protected parties are B.M. and his wife, S.M. B.M. did not file a response to E.P.’s opening brief. E.P. has provided us with an opening brief and a record that do not allow for meaningful review of her claims on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the order. I. DISCUSSION We are guided by well-established principles of appellate review.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 852–855.) 2 We refer to the parties by their initials to protect their privacy interests. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(8), (10).)

The general rule of appellate review is that a reviewing court examines the correctness of a judgment or order based on a record of those matters that were before the trial court. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405 (Zeth S.); In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087, 1102 (Kenneth D.) [“[A]ppellate courts review a trial court’s judgment based on the record as it existed when the trial court ruled.”].) The appellate court will only consider matters that were part of the record before the trial court and will disregard statements of fact or factual assertions that are not supported by reference to the trial court record. (McOwen v. Grossman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 937, 947.) E.P., although self-represented, must follow these rules. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247 (Nwosu).) Appellate courts are also required, under the principles of appellate review, to presume the trial court’s order was correct. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609 (Jameson).) As the appellant, E.P. must show error based on the documents or exhibits from the trial court that she has provided as part of the record on appeal. (Id. at p. 609; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham); see Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.) E.P.’s appeal does not meet these standards. The opening brief makes no reference to the trial court record and the record on appeal is made up largely of documents and attempts to file materials that appear to postdate the issuance of the restraining order or that were not before the trial court at the time it issued the order. E.P. focuses on an affidavit, numerous pleadings, and on audio files of a recorded conversation that she has sought to file as part of her appeal.3 We understand the affidavit to be an effort by E.P. to have this court consider her sworn statements. Since