DISCUSSION

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his request to set aside the paternity judgment and conduct DNA testing. The sole contention in his brief is that DNA testing should have been granted because he had not met the child or consented to being the child’s father. Because we do not have the request itself in the record before us, we cannot determine the basis for appellant’s request to set aside the judgment of paternity. All that is known from our record is that appellant filed the request, and that request was denied. Such a ruling rests in the court’s discretion, and our review is limited to “determining whether the court’s factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence and whether the court acted reasonably in exercising its discretion.” (In re Marriage of De Guigne (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1360.) “ ‘ “ ‘Discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered. The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion, and unless a clear case of abuse is shown and unless there has been a miscarriage of justice a reviewing court will not substitute its

2 The record does not contain a copy of either pleading.

3. opinion and thereby divest the trial court of its discretionary power.’ ” ’ ” (Acosta v. Brown (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 234, 244.) To the extent that appellant challenges the trial court’s refusal to set aside the paternity judgment and order DNA testing, the record appellant provided is inadequate to allow us to rule in his favor. It lacks any of the pleadings filed in support or in opposition to his request, and there was no reporter’s transcript of the hearing. In the absence of the moving papers and transcript, we cannot determine what evidence supported the court’s order or the reasons the court exercised its discretion as it did. In such a case, “[t]he evidence is presumed sufficient to support the judgment.” (Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1003; see also Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969, 976−977 [rejecting a husband’s challenge to family court order where appellate record does not contain all evidence introduced below on child support issue or hearing transcript].) Moreover, appellant’s brief does not provide an adequate summary of the procedural facts or of the evidence submitted related to his request, and it contains assertions of fact that are not supported by citations to authority or facts in the record. We acknowledge that appellant is representing himself in this appeal and has not had the formal legal training that would be beneficial in advocating his position. However, the rules of civil procedure apply with equal force to parties in propria persona as they do those represented by attorneys. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984– 985.) In sum, appellant’s claim is forfeited because he has not supported it with citations to the record or with any meaningful argument. Further, because appellant has failed to provide an adequate record from which we may evaluate his claim that the trial court erred in denying his request, we must resolve the claim against him.

4.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Each party shall bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278,(a)(5).)

5.