The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye ,j.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appellant Brian Bruce (father) appeals from a trial court order establishing a parenting schedule for his three children and requiring him to pay child support to the children's mother, Leslie Gray (mother), in the amount of $635 per month beginning in January 2009. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.
Father has elected to proceed on a clerk's transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter's transcript of the trial in this matter. This is referred to as a "judgment roll" appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083 (Allen); Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)
This limited record establishes the following: Father and mother have three daughters. In January 2000, after paternity was established, father was ordered to pay $375 per month to mother for child support. Two years later custody of the children was granted to father, and mother was awarded supervised visitation. Mother also was ordered to enroll in an anger management program "to better deal with issues of domestic violence in the home."
In 2003 mother was ordered to pay to father $297 per month for support of the children and an additional $25 per month for support arrears.
In 2004 mother's parenting time with the children was increased and her time with the children was no longer required to be supervised.
In March 2005 the trial court appointed an expert to complete a Family Code section 3110 custody evaluation. Shortly thereafter, mother's child support obligation was reduced to zero and the parties shared legal and physical custody of their children.
In January 2007 the trial court appointed a second expert to perform a Family Code section 3110 custody evaluation. Mother and father were ordered to share the cost of the evaluation, but father ultimately paid the balance himself. The evaluation was completed, and the report was received by the court on June 18, 2008.
Father then moved to modify custody, support, and visitation. In his formal statement of issues and contentions, father declared under penalty of perjury that one of their daughters lived with him that year for most of September, October, and November. He said mother violated the court's prior order by refusing to pay her share of the custody evaluation, refusing to transport the children to father for his parenting time, refusing to pay her share of transportation costs for the children, and by failing to provide proof that she completed the court-ordered domestic violence class.
Father asked the court to find he was the primary custodial parent of all three children, and to allow him to claim all three children as dependents on his income tax returns. He also asked the court to order mother to reimburse him for unpaid travel expenses, half the cost of the custody evaluation, and half the cost of medical insurance for the children. Finally, father asked the court to compel mother to attend the domestic violence program she was ordered to attend in 2002.
Father's motion was heard at a long cause hearing on January 23, 2009. Mother and father both testified at the hearing, and the matter was taken under submission. The court issued a written decision the following month. The court awarded mother and father shared legal and physical custody of the children, and imposed a detailed parenting schedule. Father was allowed to claim tax deductions for two children and mother for one.
Father was ordered to pay $544 per month to mother for child support for the period from June 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, increasing to $635 per month beginning ...