Marriage of Lee and Gougher CA2/6

Filed 8/16/22 Marriage of Lee and Gougher CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MARLIN 2d Civil No. B311508 LEE and QUEEN ANN (Super. Ct. No. 19FL02685) GOUGHER. (Santa Barbara County)

MARLIN LEE GOUGHER,

Appellant,

v.

QUEEN ANN GOUGHER,

Respondent.

Proceeding in propria persona, Marlin Lee Gougher (husband) appeals from the judgment dissolving his nine-year marriage to Queen Ann Gougher (wife). Judgment was entered following a court trial conducted via Zoom. Wife was represented by counsel; husband represented himself. The family court divided the parties’ property and ordered that husband make an

equalizing payment to wife of $659.47. Although husband requested monthly spousal support of $1,000, the family court did not order spousal support. We affirm. The Court Trial The family court’s minutes state: “[Husband] testifies on his own behalf. He is currently incarcerated in a federal prison and requests that he be appointed counsel. The court explains that attorneys are not appointed in a civil dissolution action. He represents that he needs certain documents.” Husband’s Contentions on Appeal Are Forfeited Husband submitted an opening brief that he had prepared while in prison. Wife did not file a brief. Husband contends that the family court committed “prejudicial error” by refusing to grant his pretrial request for a continuance. He asserts that the court “forced me to continue without an attorney” and without “discovery, that only an attorney could have obtained as I did not [ha]ve any outside help . . . .” In addition, husband claims that the family court judge “err[]ed in not changing the separation date when I told him that I erred when I filled in the date, . . . which would have cha[n]ged all the computations and would have effected [sic] the outcome of the financial award and spousal support.” The family court’s minutes do not show that husband requested a continuance of the trial or a change in the parties’ separation date. There is no reporter’s transcript, settled statement, or agreed statement. The record, therefore, is inadequate to support husband’s claims of error. “It is well settled . . . that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record. [Citations.] Because [husband] has failed to provide such a record, we have