Wang v. Jiang CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Aug 27, 2025 No. B335244Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments of dissolution and on reserved issues, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record or coherent legal analysis to demonstrate prejudicial error.

Issues

Did the trial court violate the appellant's due process rights by proceeding in his absence?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion regarding child custody, visitation, and support calculations?
Did the trial court exhibit bias or fail to provide a required statement of decision?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“None of his arguments is supported by coherent analysis and discussion, or pertinent legal authority. Nor has Jiang provided a reporter’s transcript of any of the relevant proceedings, and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record.”

“It is a fundamental rule of appellate review that a trial court’s order or judgment is presumed correct, and the appellant bears the burden to demonstrate prejudicial error.”

“Jiang has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate reversible error with respect to the judgment of dissolution.”

Filed 8/27/25 Wang v. Jiang CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

GUI WANG, B335244; B339080 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Los Angeles County YUANZHAO JIANG, Super. Ct. No. 22STFL04483)

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bradley S. Phillips, Judge. Affirmed. Yuanzhao Jiang, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

This is the second appeal in this family law case. In the first appeal, a different panel of this court affirmed a five-year domestic violence restraining order, issued on September 28, 2022, against appellant Yuanzhao Jiang (Jiang) and in favor of respondent Gui Wang, and their daughter, Mingxin Jiang. (Wang v. Jiang (Jan. 29, 2025, B324791) [nonpub. opn.].) In this consolidated appeal1, Jiang now challenges the judgment of dissolution and the judgment on reserved issues, entered on October 23, 2023 and March 20, 2024 respectively. He makes several arguments for reversal of the judgments, including that the trial court: violated his due process rights by proceeding in his absence; abused its discretion in denying him custody of his daughter and visitation; miscalculated child support by relying on only one month’s earnings; and exhibited bias against him. None of his arguments is supported by coherent analysis and discussion, or pertinent legal authority. Nor has Jiang provided a reporter’s transcript of any of the relevant proceedings, and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Our summary of the factual and procedural background is taken from the very limited record on appeal. Wang filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on April 25, 2022. On October 13, 2023, the trial court called the matter for trial. Wang testified on her own behalf. Jiang was initially

Wang v. Jiang CA2/4

AI Brief

INTRODUCTION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MORI, J.

AI Brief