Walton

DISCUSSION

Walton contends the trial court “completely erred in the . . . child custody trial in refusing and failing to provide [Walton] with the due process of a court reporter to officially document the details of [Walton’s] child custody trial and all prior family law proceedings.” Walton contends “[t]he evidence” from the trial and the trial court’s nonprovision of a court reporter “warrant the relief of a new trial” and “revers[al] [of] all the trial courts judgments in this child custody case.” Respondent has not filed a brief. We conclude the trial court prejudicially erred when it declined to furnish a reporter for the October 2018 court trial, after Walton, an in forma pauperis litigant, requested one. But first, we address two threshold issues. The Record on Appeal In a related case, and before Walton filed his opening brief in this appeal, we affirmed a restraining order preventing Walton from seeing his son, because Walton failed to provide an adequate record on appeal, including the complained-of order. (Walton II v. Dunn-Williams (Oct. 7, 2019, C087424) [nonpub. opn.].) We warned Walton that, due in part to concerns for our own “independence and unbiased…