Marriage of Mitchell CA2/6

Filed 6/15/22 Marriage of Mitchell CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re Marriage of NICOLE M. 2d Civil No. B311655 and CHRISTOPHER L. (Super. Ct. No. D362162) MITCHELL (Ventura County)

NICOLE M. MITCHELL,

Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHER L. MITCHELL,

Respondent,

Nicole M. Mitchell appeals from an order terminating the trial court’s jurisdiction over spousal support. Appellant and her former spouse, respondent Christopher L. Mitchell, represented themselves in the trial court and on appeal. This is the second time that appellant has sought relief from this court in her marital matter. In her previous appeal, we affirmed an order

modifying child support and denying her motion to set aside a prior child support order. (Marriage of Mitchell (B308861, Oct. 25, 2021) [non-pub. opn.].) Appellant’s legal arguments are forfeited because they are not supported by citations to the record. Accordingly, we affirm. Factual and Procedural Background The parties married in 2003. They separated in 2014, and the marriage was dissolved in 2016. In 2016 the trial court did not order the payment of spousal support. It found that respondent “has no ability to pay spousal support after payment of child support . . . and the common necessaries of life.” The court stated, “Both parties fully understand the goal of becoming self-supporting, and the Court hereby issues a GAVRON admonition to both parties. Marriage of Gavron (1988) 203 [Cal.App.3d] 705, 711-712.” “[W]hat has become known as a ‘Gavron warning’ is a fair warning to the supported spouse [that] he or she is expected to become self-supporting.” (In re Marriage of Schmir (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 43, 55.) In April 2019 respondent filed a request for an order terminating the trial court’s jurisdiction over spousal support. The court denied the request “based upon the length of the marriage and the earning potential of both parties.” The court found that “neither party has the ability to pay affirmative spousal support at this time.” It ordered that “the zero spousal support order will continue.” The court said, “I remind [appellant] that she does indeed have a Gavron admonition to make her best efforts to become self-employed . . . .” In July 2020 respondent filed a second request for an order terminating the trial court’s jurisdiction over spousal support. Respondent claimed, “[Appellant] blatantly ignored and