Mayer v. Martinez

Filed 4/12/07 Mayer v. Martinez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James Petrucelli, Judge.

Esteban Martinez, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Sally Mayer, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

oo0oo

Appellant, Esteban Martinez, appeals from an order re child custody and visitation filed on February 8, 2006. This order granted respondent, Sally Mayer, sole legal and physical custody of the parties minor child and denied appellant visitation pending further order of the court.

However, appellants challenge has little, if anything, to do with this February 8, 2006, order. Rather, appellants argument appears to primarily focus on the following prior orders: (1) a January 7, 2002, order that modified the original joint custody order to grant respondent sole custody of the child and deny appellant visitation; and (2) a July 23, 2004, restraining order that required appellant to stay at least 100 yards away from respondent and the child.

Although his argument is nearly incomprehensible, appellant seems to be claiming that he was not properly served with notice of the July 23, 2004, hearing and it was therefore improper to modify the custody order without evidence of immediate harm to the child. Appellant also objects to the January 2002 orders requirement that he pay a portion of the cost of counseling. However, an appeal might previously have been taken from each of the prior orders. Thus, this court does not have jurisdiction to review those decisions. (Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 212, 239-240.)

Moreover, the only evidence appellant provided that pertains to the order appealed from is a copy of the order itself. There is nothing contained in this order that supports appellants argument that it is voidable. Thus, appellant has not met his burden of demonstrating reversible error by an adequate record. (Cf. Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.

^* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J.; Levy, J.; and Dawson, J.