Filed 12/15/17 M.K. v. J.M. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO


M.K.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

J.M.,

Defendant and Respondent.
B275404

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. LF007483)


APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Virginia Keeny, Judge. Affirmed.

M.K., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lisa-Jayne Rosengren for Defendant and Respondent.
___________________________________________________

M.K. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order modifying the custody and visitation of his twins G.K. and S.K. (DOB 8/2013) (collectively, the children). Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court ruled a substantial change of circumstances warranted granting sole legal custody of the children to J.M. (Mother) in South Carolina and terminating the children’s visits to California until they turned five years old. Because of deficiencies in the Father’s opening brief, his failure to designate a reporter’s transcript, and the limited documents he designated for inclusion in the Appellant’s Appendix, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2014, Father filed a petition for paternity of the children. In response, Mother filed a request for an order allowing her to relocate the children to South Carolina. Both parties filed declarations with the court, each accusing the other of being an unfit parent, the details of which are not relevant on appeal.
On October 9, 2014, at the initial hearing on the matter, the juvenile court set the case for trial. During the interim, it ruled Father had primary physical custody of the children, and “tie-breaking authority” with respect to legal custody.
Trial was held the afternoons of February 25 and March 13 and 17, 2015. The parties were represented by counsel. The juvenile court heard testimony from Mother, Father and third party witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, the juvenile court directed the parties to appear on March 20, 2015, at which time it announced its decision (March 2015 Order). On that day, it ruled Father and Mother had joint legal custody of the children, and Mother had primary physical custody and was allowed to move them to South Carolina. It further ruled Father had visitation rights with the children in both California and in South Carolina.
Following the March 2015 Order, the parties filed several ex parte requests regarding the “move away” order. Father sought to block the ruling, while Mother sought to enforce it. The juvenile court eventually set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on September 15, 2015. On that date, Father filed a motion to modify custody of the children and attached multiple exhibits in support. Given the new evidence, the juvenile court rescheduled the evidentiary hearing to November 13, 2015. In the meantime, the parties continued to file various petitions and declarations with the court.
The evidentiary hearing took place on November 13 and December 1, 2015, and January 11, 2016. Both parties were represented by counsel. The juvenile court heard testimony from Mother and Father and admitted numerous exhibits. At the conclusion of the hearing, it took the matter under submission and ordered both parties to file post-trial briefs.
On April 8, 2016, the juvenile court issued a 35-page order (April 2016 Order), granting sole legal custody of the children to Mother and terminating the children’s visits to California until they turned five years old. It concluded, inter alia, that Father’s conduct towards the children following the March 20, 2015 hearing was “very concerning,” “inconsistent with good parenting,” and constituted a “significant change in circumstances” warranting modification of the custody and visitation of the children.
On June 6, 2016, Father filed a timely appeal.
The record on appeal consists of an Appellant’s Appendix and a Respondent’s Appendix. The Appellant’s Appendix contains numerous minute orders, exhibits and documents related to the juvenile court’s March 2015 Order, all of which have no bearing on this appeal. Although the Respondent’s Appendix includes a copy of the April 2016 Order, none of the exhibits referenced in that order have been included in the record. Father also elected to proceed on appeal without a reporter’s transcript.
DISCUSSION
“‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct . . . and error must be affirmatively shown.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, original italics.) “An appellant must provide an argument and legal authority to support his contentions. This burden requires more than a mere assertion that the judgment is wrong.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) “Consequently, plaintiff [also] has the burden of providing an adequate record.” (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.) When a party has elected to proceed with the appeal solely on a clerk’s transcript [or appellant’s appendix], we treat it as an appeal on the “judgment roll.” (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082.) For an appeal on the judgment roll, we conclusively presume sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court’s findings. (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) Our review is limited to determining whether any error “appears on the face of the record.” (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)
The fundamental flaw with Father’s appeal is that none of his arguments contained in his opening brief challenge any of the juvenile court’s rulings in the April 2016 Order. Further, “‘[t]he reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. It is entitled to the assistance of counsel [or the litigant if, as here, the litigant chooses to represent himself]. Accordingly every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.’ [Citation.]” (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050.) Given the deficiencies in Father’s opening brief, we treat his challenge to the April 2016 Order as waived.
Accordingly, we affirm. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 [“With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, the Court of Appeal was presented with no reason to proceed to the merits of any unraised ‘points’—and, a fortiori, no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question.”].)

DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Mother shall be entitled to her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

GOODMAN, J.*
We concur:

ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J.

HOFFSTADT, J.