County of Alameda Dept. of Child Support Services v. Vaughn CA1/2

facts limited to matters in the record” as is required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C), thus this background section is taken from the record on appeal, supplemented on our own motion where indicated below. 3 The record on appeal does not include any filings between the 2020

complaint and the September 2023 “Request for Order” (RFO) that is the focus of this appeal. As such, we presume the complaint was properly served (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [“It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record”]) and the intervening proceedings, which are neither noticed nor referenced in appellant’s opening brief, are not being contested. We therefore turn immediately to the RFO that is the subject of the appeal. 4 Carminer failed to include in his appellate record the original RFO

filed by Vaughn on September 28, 2023, thus this court separately secured said filing from the clerk of the Alameda County Superior Court, of which we take judicial notice. (California Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1) [“At any time, on motion of a party or its own motion, the reviewing court may…