Reedy v. McKinney CA3

── Reedy v. McKinney CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 Reedy v. McKinney CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- JUSTIN REEDY, C100857 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. PFL20180289) v. KAYLA MCKINNEY, Defendant and Respondent. Justin Reedy and Kayla McKinney are the parents of a minor. Reedy appeals from an order after a hearing pertaining to custody matters. Finding most of his claims of error forfeited and no merit in the remaining contentions, we affirm. BACKGROUND We dispense with a detailed recitation of the facts because they are unnecessary to the disposition of this appeal.1 It suffices to say that, in the order from which Reedy 1 The record on appeal does not comport with California Rules of Court, rules 8.124(d)(1) and 8.144(2)(C), (5)(A). The record also does not include a motion or 1 appeals, the trial court ruled, among other things: the parents maintain joint legal and physical custody with a modified custody schedule; the minor shall be addressed and identified by her given name and not her nickname until she chooses to be identified by a nickname of her choice; McKinney shall be the designator selector of the minor’s school and shall be the ultimate decisionmaker if there is a disagreement between parents and they are unable to reach an agreement after meeting and conferring; the minor’s selected school shall be a public school and not a private or parochial school; and reimbursement for travel is referred to the Department of Child Support Services. Any further factual background pertinent to Reedy’s arguments are included in the Discussion as appropriate. DISCUSSION “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court [order] is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the [order].” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408; Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 [“citing cases without any discussion of their application to the present case results in forfeiture”].) The appellant must also provide an adequate record for appellate review (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039), fairly summarize all of the facts in the light most favorable to the order (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881), and tailor the arguments to the applicable standard of review (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948). The failure to meet the foregoing requirements may result in forfeiture of an appellant’s arguments. We may further deem forfeited any issues in the brief that are not request for order filed on August 26, 2022, by McKinney, which constituted the moving papers identified in the order.