Marriage of Diener CA4/3

Filed 6/25/15 Marriage of Diener CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of DONALD and BRIGITTE MAXWELL DIENER.

DONALD DIENER, G050134 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 11D006404) v. OPINION BRIGITTE MAXWELL DIENER,

Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Paula J. Coleman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Donald Diener, in pro. per., for Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General, Linda M. Gonzalez and Renu R. George, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent Orange County Department of Child Support Services. No appearance for Respondent Brigitte Maxwell Diener.

Donald Diener appeals from the order denying his request to offset against his child support obligations a small claims judgment he obtained against his former wife, Brigitte Maxwell Diener, for money he claims she wrongfully withdrew from his bank account.1 Donald contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request. We find no error and affirm the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURE Donald and his former wife Brigitte have a 50-50 custody arrangement for their two minor children and are in an ongoing dispute over child support. The sparse record on appeal contains a February 27, 2013, order on a motion for child support modification in which the trial court ruled commencing March 1, 2013, “[Donald is] to provide [Brigitte] with half of his [Social Security] derivative benefits, for a total of $417[] per month for child support as a temporary order.” The court ordered Donald and Brigitte to provide discovery concerning their finances. The motion for child support modification was continued. The record also contains a minute order from a June 26, 2013, hearing on the continued motion to modify support, at which the court corrected the earlier order to provide commencing March 1, 2013, “[Donald is] to provide [Brigitte] with one half of the children’s [Social Security] derivative benefits[,] which is $417 per month per child as a temporary order.”2