V.S. v. P.D. CA4/1

── V.S. v. P.D. CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 V.S. v. P.D. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V.S., D086096 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 23FL011212C) P.D., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rebecca G. Church, Judge. Affirmed. P.D., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Cage & Miles and John T. Sylvester, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In this family law matter, P.D. (Father) appeals from orders regarding child custody, child support and awards of attorney fees, as well as a motion for reconsideration. We conclude that Father’s appeal is without merit, and accordingly we affirm the orders from which Father appeals.  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Father and V.S. (Mother) share a minor daughter, born in 2022 (the Child). On November 16, 2023, Mother filed a request for order seeking child custody and visitation. That request for order is not included in the appellate record. An evidentiary hearing took place on August 27, 2024, September 10, 2024, September 12, 2024, September 17, 2024, and September 19, 2024. Both Father and Mother were represented by counsel. The appellate record contains reporter’s transcripts from each day of the evidentiary hearing except for September 10, 2024. The appellate record does not contain any of the numerous exhibits admitted into evidence during the evidentiary hearing.1 1 On October 24, 2025, Father filed a motion to augment the appellate record with certain documents. On October 29, 2025, we issued an order stating that, with respect to Exhibits A–F and L–N, the request to augment would be considered concurrently with this appeal. We hereby deny Father’s request to augment the record with Exhibits A–F and L–N. “Augmentation does not function to supplement the record with materials not before the trial court.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444.) Based on the dates that appear on Exhibits A, B, C, F, L, M, N and O, those documents did not yet exist at the time of the evidentiary hearing and thus could not have been made part of the trial court record at that time. Exhibit D is a private investigator’s report that is dated prior to the evidentiary hearing. Exhibit E consists of screenshots of certain text messages from 2023 and 2024, next to which Father has added typewritten argumentative comments for our benefit. However, based on our review of the reporter’s transcripts from the evidentiary hearing, there is no indication that either Exhibit D or E was introduced into evidence at the evidentiary hearing. Father has also not presented us with any indication that any of Exhibits A–F and L–N were made part of the trial court record in connection with the matters heard by the trial court on February 18, 2025. 2  On September 19, 2024, at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court made findings and ruled on child custody and child support. It also awarded attorney fees to Mother. Those findings and rulings were later set forth in a written order dated October 25, 2024. The trial court found that Father perpetrated domestic violence within the meaning of the Domestic Violence