Lakeisha L. v. Burgess CA2/3

── Lakeisha L. v. Burgess CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 Lakeisha L. v. Burgess CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LAKEISHA L., B345248 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 23STPT02298 MARTEL BURGESS, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia A. Young, Judge. Affirmed. Martel Burgess, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. _________________________  Martel Burgess appeals from a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) entered in favor of Lakeisha L., the mother of his son, M. Burgess contends the trial court “committed two significant errors that individually and collectively violated [his] statutory and constitutional rights.” However, Burgess has failed to provide an adequate record. There is no reporter’s transcript of the proceedings nor any permissible substitute. Nor does the record on appeal include the key pleadings filed in the trial court. Accordingly, we are unable to assess Burgess’s claims of error. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND The superior court’s case summary contained in the clerk’s transcript shows that, in August 2023, Lakeisha L. filed a petition to determine parental relationship. (The case summary lists the names of pleadings and the dates they were filed, but the clerk’s transcript does not include those documents themselves.) Litigation apparently ensued over the next 18 months regarding custody, visitation, and support. In December 2024, Lakeisha apparently filed a request that a temporary restraining order be reissued. The clerk’s transcript does not include the petition or other pleading Lakeisha filed. On January 6, 2025, Burgess filed a one-paragraph declaration. Burgess stated Lakeisha’s claims were “meritless.” He stated her “request for a TRO contain[ed] no new allegations of credible fear,” and was “the culmination of manufactured stories,” “lack[ing] any evidence.” Burgess asserted Lakeisha’s “purpose” was to “weaponiz[e] TRO’s to deprive [him] and [their son M.] of an equitable and fulfilling life.” Burgess contended, “This relentless and ironic habit of Lakeisha’s to unnecessarily file TRO’s against me must cease, as it ultimately amounts to 2 harassment, false declarations to the court, and unnecessarily deprives [M.] of a just future.” A minute order reflects the parties appeared before the court on January 9, 2025. Burgess appeared by LACourtConnect; Lakeisha apparently appeared in person. The minute order identifies a court reporter, Thelma Fong. According to the minute order, the parties were “affirmed” and testified. Lakeisha presented an exhibit—Ring camera video footage—and the court admitted it into evidence. The court granted Lakeisha’s request for a DVRO for two years. The court ordered the parties to appear at a mediation on January 15, 2025. The court signed and filed a 17-page document consisting of a Restraining Order After Hearing (Order of Protection), a Child Custody and Visitation Order, and an Order to Prevent Child Abduction. The case summary reflects a “Restraining Order Hearing” on January 27, 2025. The entry lists the dates of November 14 and December 5, 2024, and January 9, 23, an