record that support claim in California

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate 4 practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 .) As a self-represented litigant, Cody “is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants.” (County of Sacramento v. Rawat (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858 , 861 (County of Sacramento).) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal a

2026(Phoenix, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 845 [“ ‘ “Contentions supported neither by argument nor by citation of authority are deemed to be without foundation and to have been abandoned.” ’ ”]; In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396 , 408 [“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.”].) Moreover, even if we were to consider this argument, we would reject it.

2026(City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239 .) “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 .) These rules of appellate procedure apply to husband even though he is representing himself on appeal.

2025(City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239 .) Similarly, “[t]o 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 .) The trial court concluded Lourick’s action against Defendants must be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to section 583.310.

2006II The juvenile court's judgment is presumed to be correct, and it is appellant's burden to affirmatively show error. ( Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 , 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 .) 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. ( City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 , 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 178 ; In re Marriage of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 672-673, fn. 3 , 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 13 .) When a point is asserted with

2006II The juvenile court's judgment is presumed to be correct, and it is appellant's burden to affirmatively show error. ( Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 , 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 .) 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. ( City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 , 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 178 ; In re Marriage of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 672-673, fn. 3 , 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 13 .) When a point is asserted with

2023All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. . . .’” (Denham v. Superior Court 1All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham).) “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. [Citations.]” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 .) “When an issue is unsupported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be d

2016“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. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.]” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 ; see also Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830-1831, fn. 4 [disregarding claims perfunctorily asserted without development].) Plaintiffs have thus fa

2025(See Multani, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1457 [“ ‘[I]t is appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error. [Citation.] 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.’ ”]; rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [briefs must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears”]; id., (a)(1)(B) [briefs must state each “point under a separate heading or subheading … and support each point by argument and, i

2025(See Multani, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1457 [“ ‘[I]t is appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error. [Citation.] 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.’ ”]; rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [briefs must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears”]; id., (a)(1)(B) [briefs must state each “point under a separate heading or subheading … and support each point by argument and, i

2026“To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to the fact in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 (S.C.).) Appellate courts are “ ‘not required to search the record . . . seeking error’ ” (Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 246 ), and they are “not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 ).

2023(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 ; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 822 .) To affirmatively show that error occurred, an “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 ; see Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 [“appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record,

2026“To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to the fact in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 (S.C.).) Appellate courts are “ ‘not required to search the record . . . seeking error’ ” (Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 246 ), and they are “not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 ).

2025(Ibid.) We exercise our discretion to do so here. 4 “[t]he notice of appeal,” “[a]ny judgment appealed from and any notice of its entry,” and “[a]ny item . . . that is necessary for proper consideration of the issues.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.122(b)(1)(A) & (B), 8.124(b)(1)(B).) Further, 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 ; L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616 , 619–620 [appellant “ ‘must do more than assert error and l

2026(In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408 [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]; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 856 [appellate court may disregard unsupported arguments]; Grassi v. Superior Court (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 6 preponderance of the evidence that removal from the prospective adoptive parent is in the child’s best interests.

2026The juvenile court has the authority and responsibility to determine whether removal from the home of a prospective adoptive parent is in the child’s best interests. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(3)(B).)4 When the Agency requests the removal, it must prove by a analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error]; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856 [appellate court may disregard unsupported arguments].) 4 Appellants argue, in their reply brief without analysis or legal authority, that the designation of N.D.’s

2026A. General Principles of Appellate Review “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment 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 judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608-609, citing Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in

2026(Jameson, at p. 609.) 9 “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 (S.C.).) When an appellant asserts a point on appeal “ ‘but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority’ ” (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862 (Nelson)) or fails to support it with appropriate record citations (In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887 (Fink); rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [requi

2026A. General Principles of Appellate Review “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment 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 judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608-609 (Jameson), citing Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to

2026(Jameson, at p. 609.) 9 “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 (S.C.).) When an appellant asserts a point on appeal “ ‘but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority’ ” (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862 (Nelson)) or fails to support it with appropriate record citations (In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887 (Fink); rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [requi

2026(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 ; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546 .) To demonstrate error, an 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 .) “When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles et al. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836,

2023(See Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277 [“‘[T]o demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.’”]; Multani v. Witkin & Neal (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1457 [plaintiffs forfeited claim of error by failing to “present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error”]; City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 287 [“[W]e may disregard conclusory arguments that are not suppo

2016(See City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 [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”]; Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647 [a point asserted without argument and authority for the proposition “is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court”]; Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1117 [“failure of appellant to advance any pertinent or intelligible legal argument

2016(See, e.g., City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 [appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to the record that support the claim of error]; Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1117 [“failure of appellant to advance any pertinent or intelligible legal argument . . . constitute[s] an abandonment of the [claim of error”].) 2 2.

2026(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “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. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, 3 ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 .) The appellant must provide an adequate record to demonstrate error.

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate 4 practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 .) As a self-represented litigant, Cody “is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants.” (County of Sacramento v. Rawat (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858 , 861 (County of Sacramento).) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal a

2026(Dilbert v. Newsom (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 317 , 323; see also Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 (Allen).) An “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 .) When an appellant asserts a point but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to pertinent authority, the court may treat it as waived or forfeited.

2026(Dilbert v. Newsom (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 317 , 323; see also Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 .) An “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 .) When an appellant asserts a point but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to pertinent authority, the court may treat it as waived or forfeited.

2024(Schmidlin, at p. 737.) Additionally, 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. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 ; see also Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002)

2023As respondents argue, Piazza’s appellate argument contains no “ ‘meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.’ ” (Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 .) “Mere suggestions of error without supporting argument or authority other than general abstract principles do not properly present grounds for appellate review.” (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078 [appellant failed to analyze any relevant legal authority “as appl

2026(Fernandes v. Singh (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 932, 942-943 (Fernandes) [“a brief must contain ‘ “meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error” ’ and contain adequate record citations, or else we will deem all points ‘to be forfeited as unsupported by “adequate factual or legal analysis” ’ ”].) 3 Respondent acknowledges that the California Rules of Court “do not provide for replies.” (See rule 8.54(a).) 6 Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot Under the Disentitlement Doctrine On August 6, 2024, respondent filed a motio

2025(See Fernandes v. Singh (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 932 , 942–943 [“a brief must contain ‘ “meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error” ’ 5 . . . or else we will deem all points ‘to be forfeited as unsupported by “adequate factual or legal analysis” ’ ”].) We also note that while mother complains the trial court failed to sanction father for his alleged mishandling of the Tier II report, California Rules of Court, rule 5.14, does not require a court to impose sanctions.

2025All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ”].) To overcome the presumption of correctness afforded trial court rulings, an appellant “must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.]” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 (S.C.).) Consequently, as the Supreme Court has admonished, “[c]ontentions supported neither by argument nor by citation of authority are deemed to be without f

2025(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); see also Wentworth v. Regents of University of California (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 580 , 595 [“ ‘ “Any statement in a brief concerning matters in the appellate record . . . must be supported by a citation to the record.” ’ ”].) Consequently, “ ‘ “if a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, . . . the argument [will be] deemed to have been waived.” ’ ” (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 156 .) 3 In addition, appellants “must present meaningful legal analysis supported by ci

2026(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 ; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546 .) To demonstrate error, an 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 .) “When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles et al. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836,

2025“To demonstrate error, [petitioner] must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.” (S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408; accord, Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956 (Cahill) [“ ‘We are not bound to develop appellants’ argume

2026(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 ; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546 .) To demonstrate error, an 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 .) “When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles et al. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836,

2025(Ibid.) We exercise our discretion to do so here. 4 “[t]he notice of appeal,” “[a]ny judgment appealed from and any notice of its entry,” and “[a]ny item . . . that is necessary for proper consideration of the issues.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.122(b)(1)(A) & (B), 8.124(b)(1)(B).) Further, 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 ; L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616 , 619–620 [appellant “ ‘must do more than assert error and l

2026(People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 ; Salas v. Department of Transportation (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1074 ; see Allen, at p. 52 [“citing cases without any discussion of their application to the present case results in forfeiture”]; Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078 [“Mere suggestions of error without supporting argument or authority other than general abstract principles do not properly present grounds for appellate review”].) Likewise, when an appellant fails to support an argument with necessary

2026(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. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ ” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 ; accord, People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 .) Similarly, an appellant forfeits a claim by failing to support it with citations to th

2026A. General Principles of Appellate Review “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment 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 judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608-609, citing Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in

2026A. General Principles of Appellate Review “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment 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 judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608-609 (Jameson), citing Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to

2026The trial “ ‘court’s judgment is presumed to be correct, and it is appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error. [Citation.] 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 M.V. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 486 , 518.) “[W]e may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt.” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4

2023(See Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277 [“‘[T]o demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.’”]; Multani v. Witkin & Neal (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1457 [plaintiffs forfeited claim of error by failing to “present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error”]; City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 287 [“[W]e may disregard conclusory arguments that are not suppo

2026This is not only a general principle of appellate 4 practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 .) As a self-represented litigant, Cody “is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants.” (County of Sacramento v. Rawat (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858 , 861 (County of Sacramento).) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal a

2023“It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 .) “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. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 3

2025(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) We treat these issues forfeited, as father has not provided “‘meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim[s] of error.’ [Citation.]” (Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 .) Reciting general principles from clearly inapposite cases does not adequately preserve an issue on appeal.

2023As respondents argue, Piazza’s appellate argument contains no “ ‘meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.’ ” (Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 .) “Mere suggestions of error without supporting argument or authority other than general abstract principles do not properly present grounds for appellate review.” (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078 [appellant failed to analyze any relevant legal authority “as appl

2021(See In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396 , 408 [“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.”]; Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647 [“Where a point is merely asserted by appellant’s counsel without any argument of or authority for the proposition, it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.”].) Moreover, we find no support in the record for defendants’ suggestion that the trial court based its de

2016(See City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 [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”]; Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647 [a point asserted without argument and authority for the proposition “is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court”]; Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1117 [“failure of appellant to advance any pertinent or intelligible legal argument