Marriage of Miller and Dolmo CA3

Filed 12/12/22 Marriage of Miller and Dolmo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re the Marriage of SCOTT MILLER and BESS C093019 CAROLINA DOLMO.

SCOTT MILLER, (Super. Ct. No. 17FL04019)

Respondent,

v.

BESS CAROLINA DOLMO,

Appellant.

This appeal arises from marital dissolution proceedings and related custody matters between appellant Bess Carolina Dolmo (Dolmo), appearing in propria persona, and respondent Scott Miller (Miller). The proceedings have been protracted and highly adversarial, driven largely by Dolmo’s persistent and excessive court filings. Eventually, the trial court urged the parties to set the matter for trial to fully resolve the case, but it is unclear from the record what proceedings have transpired, or whether judgment has been entered in the case.

1

The basis of Dolmo’s unopposed appeal is difficult to discern. Her opening brief references multiple orders from various dates, appearing to challenge one or more fee orders and interim custody orders. Despite the brief’s many passing references to specific orders, however, Dolmo’s notice of appeal only cites two orders: (1) an August 11, 2020 order following Family Court Services mediation, which modified the parties’ custody order, denied Dolmo’s request for an order to show cause re contempt, and ordered psychological testing of the parties; and (2) a September 2, 2020 order denying Dolmo’s ex parte request to modify custody but granting Miller’s ex parte request to modify Dolmo’s weekly contact with their children. These are both interlocutory orders, which we lack jurisdiction to consider on appeal. (Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 559-560 [temporary custody orders made prior to trial are not appealable]; Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696-698 [no appellate jurisdiction over unappealable orders]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1.) Dolmo’s appeal is subject to dismissal on this basis alone. Dolmo’s brief also provides no argument or legal authority regarding the challenged orders. Nor does the brief contain accurate citations to the record. To demonstrate error, an appellant “must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408; see also Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856 [“If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been waived”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a).) Thus, even if we had jurisdiction to address Dolmo’s appeal, it would still fail for its total absence of support, analysis, or proper citations.