California Court of Appeal Oct 29, 2013 No. D062018Unpublished
Filed 10/29/13 Marriage of Skinner CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re the Marriage of KIMBERLY M. and RICHARD R. SKINNER. D062018 KIMBERLY M. MCSHERRY,
Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. ED47922)
v.
RICHARD R. SKINNER,
Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Darlene A.
White, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Richard R. Skinner, in propria persona, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
This is the third appeal by Richard R. Skinner, proceeding in propria persona, in
this marital dissolution action. This time, he challenges orders modifying custody and
visitation of his two minor children and making permanent a domestic violence
restraining order obtained by his former wife, Kimberly M. McSherry. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Skinner and McSherry divorced in 2000. Since that time, their many disputes over
the custody, visitation, and support of their two minor children have necessitated family
court intervention. McSherry has also obtained domestic violence restraining orders
claims of error will fail' "]; Dabney v. Dabney (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 379, 384 ["We
need not consider an argument for which no authority is furnished."].)
Skinner's brief contains nothing recognizable as a legal argument. His brief
clearly expresses his unhappiness with the current custody and visitation arrangement and
his frustration with the participants in the events and legal process that led up to it. For
example, Skinner (1) rails against McSherry, whom he accuses of perjury and describes
as "a treacherous manipulator"; (2) complains that McSherry's current husband has a
"nasty demeanor" and is "critical and abusive" of Skinner's son; and (3) disparages the
family court as "a Kangaroo-Court" for ignoring McSherry's "pattern of false
allegations," "conduct[ing] business as usual" in disregard of the law, making permanent
the restraining order after a "hearing [that took] seconds without subpoenaed witnesses
4
testifying," and "not being diligent in determining the facts." Skinner does not provide
record citations for his many factual allegations, however, and "[w]e are not required to
search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [his] contentions." (Mansell
v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545.) Nor does Skinner cite any
statutes, cases, or other legal authorities in support of his contentions, which we therefore
deem forfeited. (Multani, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1457; Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189
Cal.App.4th 647, 655; In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at
p. 830.) Rather, Skinner "yields to [us] to properly apply the laws," and asks us to help
him in his "battle" for "the children and justice." Such emotional pleas, no matter how
sincerely or strongly urged, are no substitute for the persuasive legal argument we require
before we will modify or reverse the orders challenged on appeal.
In rejecting his challenges to the family court's orders, we are mindful that Skinner
represents himself. Self-representation, however, does not allow an appellant to avoid
the obligation to make an affirmative showing of error. Our Supreme Court has "ma[d]e
clear that mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment.
Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply
equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation."
(Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) This court has similarly held:
" 'When a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he is entitled to the same, but no
greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. . . . Further, the in propria
persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney.' "
(Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125-1126; accord,
5
County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444; Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) Thus, since Skinner did not comply with the rules
requiring all appellants to state a cogent legal argument supported by authority, he has
forfeited his claims of error.
Finally, we must dispose of Skinner's request for judicial notice of
correspondence, a hearing transcript, and various documents filed in the action. Judicial
notice is proper only if the material to be noticed is relevant to a claim of error and
helpful to its resolution. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24
Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2; Duronslet v. Kamps (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 717, 737.) That is
not the case here. Because Skinner has not articulated a legal argument that would
support reversal or modification of the family court's orders, there is no claim of error to
which the documents of which he requests judicial notice would be relevant.
Accordingly, we deny the request.
6
DISPOSITION
The order regarding custody and visitation filed April 19, 2012, and the domestic
violence restraining order filed April 9, 2012, are affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's orders regarding child custody, visitation, and a domestic violence restraining order because the appellant failed to provide a cogent legal argument or cite authority to support his claims of error.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in its custody and visitation orders and in making the domestic violence restraining order permanent.
Whether the appellant's failure to provide legal argument or authority results in the forfeiture of his claims on appeal.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Skinner's appeal fails on fundamental principles of appellate review.”
“Skinner's brief contains nothing recognizable as a legal argument.”
“Since Skinner did not comply with the rules requiring all appellants to state a cogent legal argument supported by authority, he has forfeited his claims of error.”