Marriage of Sareen CA3

Filed 12/4/13 Marriage of Sareen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re the Marriage of REEMA and VIKAS SAREEN. C070678

REEMA SAREEN, (Super. Ct. No. 06FL00798)

Respondent,

v.

VIKAS SAREEN,

Appellant.

Vikas Sareen (father) appeals from an order denying his motion to modify child support. Father raises numerous claims on appeal, but without a reporter’s transcript we must assume there was sufficient evidence presented in the trial court to support the trial court’s ruling. We will affirm the trial court’s order.

1

BACKGROUND The appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on father’s motion to modify child support. This is referred to as a judgment roll appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) The limited appellate record establishes that on August 30, 2011, father filed a motion to modify child support based on changed circumstances. Father asserted the following: he was required to leave his job with the New York Port Authority and relocate to India; he was “compelled to stay in India” while criminal charges were pending against him; his application for reinstatement with the Port Authority was rejected and he was no longer employed by the Port Authority; but he was able to obtain work as an associate professor of engineering in India, a job that paid less money. Father attached various documents to his reply declaration in support of his claims: a letter from Manav Rachna International University confirming his status as an associate professor, two pay stubs from the university, and e-mail correspondence with the Port Authority indicating there was no available position to offer him for reinstatement. Following a hearing on November 17, 2011, father submitted additional e-mail correspondence with the Port Authority. In those e-mails, dated May 2011, father was told by a man named “Jim Steven” that a job was not currently available for father, but someone was retiring so a job would soon become available. Jim noted the job would need to be re-classified and some work would need to be done through “HR,” but they would work to resolve things quickly. Commissioner Harman heard father’s motion on January 19, 2012. Father objected to the commissioner and requested a statement of decision. Commissioner Harman subsequently issued findings and recommendations with an attached statement of decision, recommending denial of father’s motion and making the following factual findings: