DISCUSSION

Appellant has failed to provide this court with sufficient record of the proceedings below. This failure dooms his appeal.

1 Appellant states that the trial court excluded this e-mail evidence at the hearing.

2 A fundamental rule of appellate review is that an appealed judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Ibid.; see also In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 [“judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness”].) To overcome this presumption, the appellant must provide an adequate appellate record demonstrating error. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) Where the appellant fails to provide an adequate record of the challenged proceedings, we must presume that the appealed judgment or order is correct and, on that basis, affirm. (Id. at pp. 1295-1296; see also Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 [“[f]ailure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [appellant]”]; Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1 [failure to provide an accurate record “precludes an adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial court’s determination”].) Here, appellant has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal for this court to review his challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting the trial court’s judgment, including its ruling on the date of separation and the award of spousal support. It appears the January 3, 2013 hearing was not reported. Therefore, we do not have a complete record of the evidence that was presented during the hearing. Nor do we have any documentation reflecting the trial court’s reasons for arriving at its determinations. Further, apart from appellant’s written complaint and the court’s response, we have no information as to what actually occurred during the mandatory settlement conference and therefore no way to determine whether any allegedly improper conduct had a substantive impact on the proceedings. Accordingly, under the principles of appellate review described above, we have no basis upon which to reverse any of the trial court’s rulings.

DISPOSITION

The amended judgment is affirmed.

3 _________________________ Dondero, J.

We concur:

_________________________ Margulies, Acting P.J.

_________________________ Banke, J.

A138566

4