Marriage of Boston CA6

Filed 9/9/14 Marriage of Boston CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Marriage of MASUMI and BRUCE H039785 BOSTON. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 6-12-FL009346)

MASUMI BOSTON,

Respondent,

v.

BRUCE BOSTON,

Appellant.

Bruce Boston, in propria persona, appeals from the trial court’s order granting his wife, Masumi Boston, exclusive use and possession of the family home.1 We conclude that Bruce has failed to provide us with an adequate record to review on appeal, and in any event, has failed to affirmatively demonstrate error. We will affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Bruce and Masumi married in 1993 and had three children together. Masumi sought dissolution of the marriage in November 2012.2 On January 22, 2013, the trial court entered an order regarding temporary visitation and support. Bruce and Masumi

1 Since the parties share the same surname, we will refer to them by their first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended. 2 There is nothing in the record that indicates a judgment of dissolution has been entered.

were given joint legal custody and joint physical custody, but Masumi was given primary physical custody. Three days later on January 25, 2013, Masumi filed a request for a court order to grant her exclusive temporary use, possession, and control of the family home. Masumi’s attached declaration alleged Bruce refused to move out of the family home upon their separation, forcing her and the parties’ three children to live in a one-bedroom apartment. Masumi claimed that “Bruce’s new lifestyle of multiple sexual partners he meets on the internet is not conducive to all of us living in the same house together.” She further argued that the cost of housing where her children attended school was high, and it was in the children’s best interest to live within their current school district. Bruce filed a responsive declaration opposing Masumi’s request, contending that she should not be granted exclusive possession and use of the family home. Bruce asserted that there was no reason why the parties could not live together in the family home, because there was no evidence of domestic violence or risk of harm to the children. Additionally, Bruce maintained that Masumi had moved out of the family residence out of her own personal preference, which did not give her justification to move the children out of the home. Bruce further insisted that granting Masumi exclusive use and possession of the home would amount to an illegal eviction. He also requested reconsideration of the current child custody orders. On April 9, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the matter. The transcript of the proceedings was not included in the record on appeal. After the hearing, the court ordered Masumi to have “exclusive use and possession of [the] family home effective 5- 1-13.” On June 11, 2013, the trial court entered a findings and order after hearing granting Masumi exclusive use and possession of the family home. The order clarified that Bruce could request up to $10,000 in additional funds for his relocation, and Masumi