Marriage of Kosharek and Egorov CA1/1

Filed 1/23/14 Marriage of Kosharek and Egorov CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re the Marriage of GILLIAN KOSHAREK and VLADIMIR EGOROV.

GILLIAN KOSHAREK, A137688

Respondent, (San Mateo County v. Super. Ct. No. FAM084145) VLADIMIR EGOROV, Appellant.

Appellant Vladimir Egorov argues the trial court erred in modifying a child custody and support order by temporarily reducing the share of child care attributed to him, and thereby increasing the amount of his child support. Because Egorov has failed to provide an adequate appellate record from which we can evaluate his claim of error, we affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND The following account of the background of the appeal is based, in part, on statements in Egorov’s opening brief and in part on the unauthenticated documents submitted as an appellate record. We present this only for the purpose of explanation, since we cannot rely in deciding an appeal on matters that are not supported by properly admitted materials in the appellate record. On November 8, 2011, respondent Gillian Kosharek filed an order to show cause for modification of the child custody and support order in the parties’ marital dissolution

proceeding, arguing Egorov did not spend as much time with their two children as anticipated by the existing order. Egorov opposed the motion. Beginning in March 2012, prior to any ruling on Kosharek’s request to modify the support order, Egorov spent eight weeks caring for his ill mother, during which he spent no time with the children. The family court’s order, entered on January 4, 2013, was based on hearings held on August 10, and November 2, 2012, and adopted recommendations of family court services. For the period March 1, 2012 through August 31, 2012, the court found the couple’s children spent 22 percent of their time with Egorov and based its support calculations on that finding. From September 1, 2012 forward, the court based its support calculations on the finding the children had spent (and would spend) equal time with both parents. Egorov claims the family court arrived at the figure of 22 percent for the period March 1 through August 31 by considering the time he spent with his mother, away from the children, and argues this was improper. The appellate record in this matter consists of a series of 18 documents or, in nearly all instances, portions of documents, assembled as an appellant’s appendix. To the extent any of the documents are pleadings, few captions have been included, and only the copy of the order from which Egorov has appealed bears a stamp showing it was filed with the court. Kosharek’s order to show cause is not in the record, nor are the evidentiary materials submitted with it, other than, it appears, a declaration by Kosharek. There is no copy of Egorov’s opposition, although it is possible some of the included documents are from his opposition. Other than the order appealed from, a complete copy of which does appear to have been included, the remaining documents are schedules and statements with no indication of their source. There are no transcripts of the proceedings before the family court. II. DISCUSSION “It is well settled . . . that 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.) When no adequate record is provided, “the judgment must be affirmed. [Citation.] This is so because ‘ “ ‘[a] judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All