Kast v. Antonsson CA1/4 filed
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 3/28/11 Kast v. Antonsson CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JOHN W. KAST, Petitioner and Respondent, A129211 v. (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. FPT-06-375647) ANNA KARIN ANTONSSON, Respondent and Appellant. I. INTRODUCTION This is the fourth appeal filed by appellant Anna Karin Antonsson, acting in propria persona, arising out of her family law proceedings against respondent John W. Kast. In this appeal, appellant is challenging the family law court s order following a hearing on June 14, 2010 (the June 14 hearing), denying appellant s request for a change of custody or modification of appellant s visitation with her minor daughter, who is in respondent s legal and physical custody. As in her previous three appeals, no basis exists for reversal because appellant fails to support her assertions of error with legal argument or analysis. Also, as to the merits of her motion, it appears that the trial court acted well within its discretion in denying the motion. Consequently, we affirm. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant has recently appeared before this court on three separate occasions concerning this same case. In Kast v. Antonsson (A117115, Apr. 4, 2008 [nonpub. opn.]) 1 (Kast I), we affirmed the trial court s decision to award appellant s former husband, respondent John W. Kast, presumed father status with respect to appellant s daughter under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d). We stated in Kast I that we were compelled by law to affirm the trial court s decision because of appellant s failure to designate a record, identify any errors made by the trial court, and cite any law or authority supporting her allegations. (Kast I at p. 1.) In Kast v. Antonsson (A120914, Oct. 8, 2008 [nonpub. opn.]) (Kast II), appellant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to order a child custody evaluation pursuant to Family Code section 3111, subdivision (a). (Kast II at p. 1.) We affirmed, concluding that in briefing her second appeal, appellant repeats the same errors she made in briefing Kast I. Appellant has presented arguments unsupported by authority or citations to the record. (Kast II at p. 2.) In Kast v. Antonsson (A122463, Apr. 28, 2009 [nonpub. opn.]) (Kast III), appellant sought reversal of the trial court s denial of her motion to remove a special master who had been appointed pursuant to a stipulation and subsequent order dated May 10, 2007. We affirmed, again concluding as we had in her three earlier appeals, that appellant failed to identify any errors made by the trial court, and cite any law or authority supporting her allegations. (Kast III at p. 1.) In examining the merits of her claim, we also concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in the family court s denial of appellant s motion. (Kast III at pp. 2-3.) III. DISCUSSION Once again, appellant brings an appeal without setting forth sufficient factual citations to the record, and absent any legal arguments and citations entitling her to the relief sought. While we can discern that appellant is challenging the court s denial of her motion to modify the minor s custody or her visitation rights, appellant fails to set forth any facts or law supporting her claim. As we said in Kast II and Kast III, [w]hen a party is challenging a judgment, that party has the burden of showing reversible error by appropriate reference to the 2 record. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14(a).) Furthermore, where a brief asserts a point without supporting authorities, the reviewing court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration. [Citation.] (In re Marriage of Schroeder (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1164.) (Kast II at p. 2; Kast III at p. 1.) In both Kast II and Kast III, we also reminded appellant that under California law, a litigant appearing in propria persona is generally held to the same restrictive rules and procedures as an attorney . . . . (Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 93, 98; Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639.) Thus, appellant is not entitled to any special treatment because she is representing herself. (Kast II at pp. 2-3; Kast III at p. 2.) Because appellant has once again failed to support her assertions of error with necessary citations to the record and with reasoned legal argument or analysis, no basis exists for reversal of the order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court on that ground. Despite our decision to affirm the lower court based on appellant s procedural failings, we have nonetheless examined what record has been provided which clearly reveals that the court acted within its discretion in denying appellant s motion.1 At the hearing on appellant s motion, appellant told the trial court that she sought a change in custody or in visitation with the minor (then approaching 17 years old) because the minor s last report card showed she had gotten all A s and one B, and there is no reason that she should not be able to achieve all A s in school.2 1 None of the pleadings relating to this motion are contained in the record on appeal. However, it is clear from the transcript of the June 14 hearing, that the court had reviewed appellant s written motion. Inexplicably, appellant has attached to her handwritten brief on appeal a copy of an order and related papers referring to the dismissal of her small claims case filed against Family Court Services on April 9, 2010. 2 Apparently, respondent and the minor s counsel submitted declarations below in connection with the motion. Neither document appears in the record on appeal. However, the family law judge mentioned that the documents confirmed that the minor daughter achieved thirty-four A s and one B. 3 Appellant also expressed concern that the minor had acne. Minor s counsel addressed this issue, noting that she had seen the minor the previous week, and that she looked absolutely wonderful and very healthy and looked like a healthy 16 year old. Appellant also commented on the fact that the minor, who previously had studied the piano, violin, and voice, was jumping from one thing to another, and was now playing the French horn, which the minor likes and which appellant noted was a beautiful instrument. Respondent s counsel added that, in addition to her outstanding academic achievement, the minor had performed in Hawaii playing the French horn and mellophone, and she was now playing in the Youth Symphony. The trial court s oral ruling denying appellant s motion concluded that there was no substance to appellant s concerns raised by her motion, and there was no substantial change of circumstances that required a change in custody. The court s written order denying the motion added that the absence of any changed circumstances made any return to mediation at that time unnecessary. The court also ordered that the minor be taken by respondent to their family physician to determine if there was any need for medical treatment for her acne. The court concluded by stating, Because ongoing litigation is stressful for the minor, the court encourages [appellant] to address any future issues through minor s counsel and/or the minor s therapist rather than by motion to the court. We agree particularly with this last observation by the family court judge. Moreover, based on the record before us, it is abundantly clear that the family court acted well within its discretion in denying appellant s motion. Therefore, we affirm the order of the trial court. IV. DISPOSITION The order denying appellant s motion to remove, change custody or visitation is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent. 4 _________________________ RUVOLO, P. J. We concur: _________________________ SEPULVEDA, J. _________________________ RIVERA, J. 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
