County of Riverside Dept. of Child Support Services v. Gilbert CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: E083279
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 6/18/25 County of Riverside Dept. of Child Support Services v. Gilbert CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, E083279

Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. CSHE2302184)

v. OPINION

HENRY J. GILBERT,

Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kelly A. Moran,

Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Henry J. Gilbert, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General,

Maureen C. Onyeagbako, Darin L. Wessel, and Nicolas P. Rossenblum, Deputy Attorneys

General, for Respondent.

1 I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant Henry Gilbert (Father) appeals from a judgment of child support entered

on April 24, 2024.1 The trial court established the amount of child support by applying

the statutory formula set forth in Family Code2 section 4055 (“guideline support”) to the

monthly taxable gross income reported by Father in his income and expense declaration.

On appeal, Father argues that the judgment should be reversed because: (1) the trial court

failed to consider whether financial hardship or income disparity justified deviation from

the statutory guideline amount; and (2) the trial court failed to consider the best interests

of his child in establishing the amount of support. For the first time in reply, Father also

argues that his due process rights were violated because he was deprived of a fair hearing.

We conclude that each of these arguments has been forfeited and further conclude that,

even in the absence of forfeiture, the record on appeal is inadequate to show an abuse of

discretion warranting reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

1 Father’s notice of appeal did not actually identify any specific order or judgment. However, Father designated only the minute order from a February 6, 2024 hearing and the reporter’s transcript of that proceeding as part of the record on appeal. Thus, it is reasonably clear that Father intended to appeal from the order or judgment issued as a result of the February 2024 hearing. As respondent acknowledges, this court has discretion to deem Father’s appeal as being taken from the judgment issued as a result of this hearing. (In re Joshua S. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 261, 272 [“‘notices of appeal are to be liberally construed so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what [the] appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced’”].) And we exercise our discretion to do so.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.

2 II. BACKGROUND

On November 27, 2023, respondent County of Riverside Department of Child

Support Services (the Department) filed a motion requesting entry of a judgment for child

support against Father. The motion requested an award of monthly child support based

upon the state guidelines.

On February 5, 2024, Father filed a declaration in opposition to the motion. The

declaration made various assertions regarding the trial court’s lack of personal

jurisdiction over Father, but did not include any facts pertaining to his income, expenses,

or the best interests of Father’s child.

On February 6, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. Father

personally appeared at the hearing and again asserted that the trial court lacked personal

jurisdiction because he had not been properly served. The Department proceeded to

present the trial court with an executed proof of service in response to Father’s assertion.3

Based upon this showing, the trial court found that Father had been properly served and

proceeded to consider the request for judgment. The following colloquy ensued:

The Court: “As to the amount of child support that is being—that the guideline

has indicated that you should be paying, $879 per month, would you like to be heard?”

Father: “Objection.”

The Court: “All right. What is your objection?”

Father: “I cannot afford that much, for one. And I was not properly served.”

3 The executed proof of service was not made part of the record on appeal.

3 The Court: “All right. Sir, so based upon the guideline information, you have a

monthly taxable gross income of $5,860 . . . . And after support, you would still be left

with over $2,600 a month. Would you like to explain to the Court why you can’t afford

that[?]”

Father: “I just told you, your Honor. I was not served properly.”

The Court: “Okay, sir.”

Father: “Nobody served me.”

The Court: “We have moved past that. Sir, I understand and noted your objection

for the record. But this Court does find that you were properly served. So given that, I

am reviewing your income and expense declaration, and I have questions about why you

believe you cannot afford the . . . $879 a month payment.”

Father: “I object to my child being in the program.”

The Court: “All right. Sir, your objection is noted for the record. Absent

any indication that you are unable to pay that amount, this Court will order that [Father]

pay . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . child support for the minor child . . . in the amount of $879 per

month . . . .”

Father did not assert any other objections or present additional argument or

evidence for the trial court’s consideration at the hearing. The trial court entered a minute

order reflecting its oral pronouncement at the time of hearing. And a formal judgment

reflects the same award of child support was entered on April 24, 2024.

4 III. DISCUSSION

A. General Legal Principles and Standard of Review

“Child support awards in California are governed by the legislation that

established a statewide uniform child support guideline. [Citations.] ‘The court shall

adhere to the statewide uniform guideline and may depart from the guideline only in the

special circumstances’ identified in the statute. [Citation.] The child support guideline is

an algebraic formula set forth in section 4055. The amount generated by the formula ‘is

intended to be presumptively correct in all cases . . . .’” (In re Marriage of Hein (2020)

52 Cal.App.5th 519, 527 (Hein); §§ 4053, subd. (k) & 4057, subd. (a).) The “guideline

figure ‘is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by

admissible evidence showing that application of the formula would be unjust or

inappropriate in the particular case . . . .’” (S.P. v. F.G. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 921, 930;

Hein, at p. 527.)

“Appellate courts review child support awards for an abuse of discretion . . . .

When conducting an abuse of discretion review, appellate courts consider (1) whether the

trial court’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, (2) whether the trial

court followed applicable legal principles, and (3) whether the trial court reasonably

exercised its discretionary authority—that is, whether any judge reasonably could have

made such an order. [Citations.]” (Hein, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 529.)

5 B. Father Has Forfeited the Specific Arguments He Now Raises on Appeal

It is a general rule of appellate procedure that “a reviewing court ordinarily will

not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in

the trial court.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) This rule of forfeiture applies

to appeals from child support orders and judgments. (In re Marriage of Crosby &

Grooms (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 201, 212 [failure to explicitly request deviation from

statutory guideline in calculating child support award forfeits the issue on appeal]; In re

Marriage of Alter (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 718, 738 [argument that child support award

was not properly calculated forfeited for failure to raise issue in trial court proceedings];

In re Marriage of Whealon (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 132, 143-144 [argument that gross

income was incorrectly calculated when establishing child support forfeited for failure to

raise it in trial court proceedings].)

Here, the record shows that at the time of the hearing, Father’s written submissions

and oral argument focused solely on the issue of jurisdiction. Father never argued that

financial hardship,4 income disparity, or the best interests of his child warranted deviation

from the guideline support specified by statute. Nor did Father argue that he was

deprived of a fair opportunity to properly direct the trial court’s attention to factors that

4 At one point, Father did make a conclusory assertion that he could not afford child support. However, when asked to explain the basis of this assertion, Father clarified that his objection was actually based upon lack of jurisdiction.

6 might justify deviation from guideline support.5 Thus, we conclude that each of the

contentions Father now raises on appeal have been forfeited and affirm the judgment on

this basis alone.

C. Even Absent Forfeiture, the Record Is Inadequate to Show Error

We also conclude that, even in the absence of forfeiture, the record on appeal is

inadequate to show error warranting reversal. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate

procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden

is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate

court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.”

(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) “‘“A necessary corollary to this rule

is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the

decision of the trial court should be affirmed.”’” (Id. at p. 609.) This rule applies in

appeals from family law orders (Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435) and

in cases in which an appellant is self-represented. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th

1229, 1247 [a self-represented party “‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled

to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys’”].)

5 We also observe that Father’s due process argument was raised only in his reply brief on appeal. “‘“[P]oints raised in the reply brief for the first time will not be considered, unless good reason is shown for failure to present them before”’” (People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1059-1060), and is an independent ground for concluding this argument has been forfeited. In this case, Father provided no good reason for his failure to comply with this requirement.

7 Here, the record that has been provided on appeal discloses that the trial court had

before it multiple documents that directly informed its determination of the amount of

child support to award. Specifically, the trial court stated it had reviewed a declaration

submitted by the Department in advance of the hearing, an answer filed by Father in the

family court proceedings, a precourt interview, and an income and expense declaration by

Father. None of these documents were included as part of the record on appeal. Without

a complete record of the materials explicitly before the trial court at the time it made its

child support award, this court cannot determine whether any findings are adequately

supported by substantial evidence or whether the trial court’s failure to deviate from the

statutory guidelines constituted an abuse of discretion. Thus, even in the absence of

forfeiture, the record is inadequate to show error warranting reversal and we would affirm

the judgment.

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover its costs on appeal.

FIELDS Acting P. J. We concur:

RAPHAEL J.

MENETREZ J.