Marriage of Kidd CA1/3

Filed 10/30/26 Marriage of Kidd CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re the Marriage of CORY DAVID KIDD and CARLA LAYNE KIDD. CORY DAVID KIDD, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171855 v. (San Mateo County CARLA LAYNE KIDD, Super. Ct. No. 19-FAM-00518) Defendant and Appellant. After a bench trial, the family court issued orders that affected child custody and related financial matters as between Carla Layne Kidd (Mother) and Cory David Kidd (Father). Mother appeals, contending the court abused its discretion and violated due process by: (1) relying on a biased and unreliable evaluation conducted by a court-appointed child custody evaluator; (2) denying a reasonable continuance and proceeding without affording Mother a meaningful opportunity to obtain counsel and discovery; and (3) imputing income to Mother without substantial evidence of actual employment or opportunity to earn the imputed income. 1  Given Mother’s manifestly inadequate presentation on appeal, we have no choice but to find she has forfeited review of her claims. The judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The statement of facts in Mother’s appellate opening brief recites facts without citation to the record. We draw the following background facts from the clerk’s transcript. On July 15, 2024, the family court commenced a bench trial on the parties’ disputed issues of custody, child support, and division of property. Mother was self-represented, and Father was represented by counsel. The court received evidence over three days (July 15, July 29, and August 12), including testimony from the parties, the deposition testimony of Dr. Gerard Aglioni (the court-appointed child custody evaluator), and Dr. Aglioni’s “Brief Focused Assessment” (BFA report) dated December 23, 2023. On August 29, Mother concluded her closing argument, and the court announced its orders from the bench. Among other things, the family court adopted the recommendations in Dr. Aglioni’s BFA report, as well as Father’s proposed custody and visitation orders with certain modifications. The order imputed annual income of $100,000 to Mother and ruled that both parents “have a duty and obligation to financially support their child.” The court’s orders are reflected in the judgment filed on November 13, 2024. Mother timely appealed. DISCUSSION Mother proffers three principal bases for challenging the family court orders. We address them in turn. Mother first contends the family court abused its discretion and violated due process by relying substantially on Dr. Aglioni’s BFA report. 2 Mother claims the BFA report was incomplete and unreliable because it was undertaken “without review of subpoenaed medical records that had been authorized for disclosure” and despite Mother’s expressed “concerns regarding the factual basis and neutrality of the evaluation.” The record citations she provides, however, reflect only that she objected to the BFA report because there was no proof of service and because, if the parties would be using Dr. Aglioni’s comments, then “we should have a conversation with him and use him as an expert witness.” Even assuming Mother made an appropriate objection below, her presentation on appeal is fundamentally lacking. “[A]n ‘ “order of the lower court is presumed correct” ’ ” and the appellant bears “the burden of affirmatively showing any error.” (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 (Tanguilig).) (Italics omitted.) Here, Mother’s factual assertions are not supported with citations to the record, which are both necessary for this court to conduct a meaningful review and mandated by rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court. And while she properly refers to the abuse of discretion and substantial evidence standards for reviewing child custody and visitation orders (see In re Marriage of J.G. & K.G. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1222), her briefing is otherwise devoid of any legal analysis or citation to relevant supporting authority. Given this inadequate presentation, Mother has forfeited review of this issue. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 (Benach); see Tanguilig, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 520.)1 1 We note Mother’s contention that the absence of a reporter’s transcript precludes meaningful appellate review of the family court’s inappropriate reliance on the BFA report. We observe, however, that the record contains reporter’s transcripts of the first three days of trial, including the session on July 29, 2024 (when the court ruled on the parties’ objections to the evidence 3  Second, Mother contends the family court improperly denied her a reasonable continuance and allowed the trial to proceed without affording her a meaningful opportunity to obtain counsel and discovery of materials supporting the BFA report and financial information. But Mother’s citations to the record do not appear factually relevant to the issue. And again, she offers no legal analysis or authority that might support her position. Thus, Mother has forfeited her contentions on this claim as well. (See Benach, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 852; see Tanguilig, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 520.) In any case, we note the record appears to support Father’s contention that the court did not find good cause for a continuance, either when Mother made her request three days before the start of trial or when she renewed her request mid-trial. Third, Mother contends the family court abused its discretion by imputing income to her in the absence of substantial evidence showing that she actually obtained employment or that she has the ability and opportunity to earn the imputed income. Yet again, Mother offers no record cites pertaining to the court’s ruling or any of the evidence presented at trial. Nor does she provide any legal analysis or authorities, apart from properly acknowledging the applicability of the abuse of discretion standard (see In re Marriage of Destein (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1393). As before, we find a forfeiture of the claim. (Benach, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 852; see Tanguilig, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 520.) and conclusions offered by Dr. Aglioni) and the session on August 12 (when the court admitted Aglioni’s deposition video and video transcript). Though there is no reporter’s transcript of the last hearing on August 29, the clerk’s transcript discloses that the parties simply concluded their closing arguments on that day and the court announced its rulings from the bench. 4  We are sympathetic to the fact that Mother is not represented by counsel. But we may not act as her advocate, and her self-represented status does not exempt her from the rules of appellate procedure. Nor does it except her from the obligation to present intelligible arguments supported by the record and legal authority. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) We are not required to search the record to find error, and we may deem arguments without necessary citations to the record as forfeited. (Id. at p. 1246.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).) _________________________ Fujisaki, J. WE CONCUR: _________________________ Tucher, P. J. _________________________ Rodríguez, J. Kidd v. Kidd (A171855) 5