B339461
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 5, 2025Background
- Silva Sarkissian and Argam Darbinian married in 2003; the court found husband repeatedly physically, verbally, and emotionally abused wife and threatened suicide and arson. The parties have one child (b. 2019) who was exposed to the abuse.
- Wife obtained a three‑year domestic violence restraining order granting her sole legal and physical custody and supervised visitation for husband; husband repeatedly violated the order and was arrested for violations.
- Husband sought expanded visitation; the family court denied modification as not in the child’s best interest and later tried the dissolution over three days in Oct–Nov 2023 (the appellate record lacks most trial transcripts).
- The family court entered judgment dissolving the marriage, awarded wife sole custody, ordered guideline child support, denied spousal support, divided assets, awarded wife needs‑based attorney fees and sanctions‑based fees, and later imposed post‑judgment sanctions when husband refused to execute the judgment.
- On appeal husband filed an incomplete record and a deficient brief, sought late augmentation/correction of the record and extraordinary writ relief (denied as untimely, jurisdictionally improper, and immaterial), and raised claims of trial‑court bias; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sarkissian) | Defendant's Argument (Darbinian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody—presumption under domestic‑violence statute | Court correctly applied Fam. Code §3044 presumption and found wife credible | Domestic violence allegations were false, evidence was unsubstantiated, hearsay improperly admitted (voicemail) | Affirmed: trial court credited wife, presumption applied and was unrebutted; absent trial transcripts appellate court will not reweigh credibility or find abuse of discretion |
| Child support—guideline calculation | Guideline support presumptively correct based on disclosed income | Amount inflated by wife’s allegedly false/hidden income; discovery failures | Affirmed: guideline amount is presumptively correct; appellant failed to show record support for claims of fraud or improper inputs; post‑judgment evidence not considered on appeal |
| Attorney fees & sanctions (pre‑ and post‑judgment) | Fees and sanctions properly awarded for husband’s obstructive conduct and fiduciary breaches | Awards lacked justification | Affirmed: §271 sanctions and fee awards were within discretion given husband’s refusal to participate in settlement conference and refusal to execute judgment; other fee awards also supported (fiduciary breach) |
| Appellate waiver/record adequacy and bias claim | Appellant entitled to relief; trial judge biased | Appellant failed to provide transcripts/settled statements and filed untimely augmentation/writ; dissatisfaction with rulings is not bias | Affirmed: appellant forfeited many claims by failing to supply an adequate record and citations; bias not shown by adverse rulings alone; motions to augment/certify record/writ denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (trial court findings are presumed correct on appeal)
- Ballard v. Uribe, 41 Cal.3d 564 (appellant must provide adequate record for review)
- Abdelqader v. Abraham, 76 Cal.App.5th 186 (Fam. Code §3044 presumption against joint custody after domestic violence)
- Kobayashi v. Superior Court, 175 Cal.App.4th 536 (pro per litigants held to same appellate rules)
- Jennifer K. v. Shane K., 47 Cal.App.5th 558 (appellate court will not reweigh credibility)
- In re Zeth S., 31 Cal.4th 396 (appeal reviews correctness as of the time of judgment; post‑judgment evidence normally not considered)
- In re Marriage of Tharp, 188 Cal.App.4th 1295 (standards for Family Code §271 sanctions)
- People v. Guerra, 37 Cal.4th 106 (adverse rulings alone do not establish judicial bias)