Marriage of D. CA4/1

Filed 9/21/23 Marriage of D. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re Marriage of JOYCE D. and SCOTT D. D080760 JOYCE D., Appellant, v. SCOTT D., (Super. Ct. No. DN174297) Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William Y. Wood, Judge. Affirmed. Joyce D., in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Joyce D. appeals a visitation and custody order. On appeal, she contends there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings that granting her custody, visitation, and conjoint therapy with her minor children would not be in their best interest. Because we presume the order is correct and because Joyce has not provided us with an adequate appellate record to show the trial court erred, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY1 Joyce D. and her ex-husband, Scott D., have three children, two of

whom are minors.2 On July 7, 2022, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing regarding Joyce and Scott’s custody and visitation dispute. Both parties represented themselves, and no court reporter was present.

Joyce, Scott, and five other witnesses testified at the hearing.3 The court admitted many of Joyce’s exhibits into evidence, including her two minor children’s report cards, photographs of her home and children, proof of one child’s COVID test, proofs of Joyce’s completion of substance abuse programs and various parenting and therapy classes, and Joyce’s resume indicating her background as an attorney. The court did not admit into evidence Joyce’s other exhibits, which included letters about her character from various individuals and treating professionals, text messages, and a police report.

1 The appellate record supplied by Joyce is insufficient to support a proper factual and procedural summary. For context, however, we provide the following summary based on the trial court’s minute order summarizing the evidentiary hearing and Dr. Clark Clipson’s psychological evaluation. Dr. Clipson’s June 16, 2022 report was designated by Joyce, but it appears that it was inadvertently omitted from the record on appeal. We augment this document on the court’s own motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)