A.M.

DISCUSSION

I. Father argues that the family law court erred by not holding a hearing regarding his 20 evidentiary objections to Mother’s declaration. Many of Father’s objections asserted lack of foundation, lack of Mother’s personal knowledge, and undue prejudice. Mother’s declaration summarized Father’s angry and abusive behavior and rested upon her personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 702, subd. (a) [“[T]he testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter”].) She described incidents of harassment and Father’s threatening and violent behavior. There was no error in overruling the objections and permitting Mother’s declaration evidence.

II.

Father contends that the child custody mediation was “incomplete,” presumably because a six-month review hearing was scheduled. (Underscoring omitted.) He also asserts that the child custody recommending counselor prejudged the matter. It is the appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record on appeal. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) “Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant].” (Ibid.) These…