B.M.

B.M. v. E.P. CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 15, 2025H051903California1,939 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. DISCUSSION

We are guided by well-established principles of appellate review.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 852–855.) 2 We refer to the parties by their initials to protect their privacy interests. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(8), (10).) The general rule of appellate review is that a reviewing court examines the correctness of a judgment or order based on a record of those matters that were before the trial court. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405 (Zeth S.); In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087, 1102 (Kenneth D.) [“[A]ppellate courts review a trial court’s judgment based on the record as it existed when the trial court ruled.”].) The appellate court will only consider matters that were part of the record before the trial court and will disregard statements of fact or factual assertions that are not supported by reference to the trial court record. (McOwen v. Grossman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 937, 947.) E.P., although self-represented, must follow these rules. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247 (Nwosu).)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.