Kelsey K. Brown, Respondent V. Casey M. Brown, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
KESLEY KATHLEEN BROWN,
Respondent,
v.
CASEY MAHENI BROWN,
Appellant.
No. 87420-9-I
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BOWMAN, A.C.J. — Casey Brown appeals pro se from several orders
issued after a trial dissolving his marriage to Kesley Brown. Specifically, Casey1
appeals from the trial court’s orders limiting his access to the court, establishing
a permanent parenting plan, establishing child support, and permanently
restraining him from having contact with Kesley or their child. Casey alleges
several errors, including (1) the lower court erred by accepting fraudulent
motions from Kesley, (2) the guardian ad litem was biased and failed to disclose
evidence, and (3) the trial court violated his right to due process and equal
protection. Casey asks for imposition of sanctions and “legal ramifications” for
certain nonparties.
1 For clarity, we refer to Casey Brown and Kesley Brown by their first names and
intend no disrespect by doing so.

No. 87420-9-I/2
2
We recognize that Casey pursues this appeal pro se. But we hold pro se
litigants to the same standard as an attorney. In re Est. of Little, 9 Wn. App. 2d
262, 274 n.4, 444 P.3d 23 (2019). And an appellant’s brief must provide “[a] fair
statement of the facts and procedure relevant to the issues presented for
review,” as well as “argument in support of the issues presented for review,
together with citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of the
record.” RAP 10.3(5), (6). The appellant also bears the burden of providing a
record sufficient to review the issues raised. Sunderland Fam. Treatment Servs.
v. City of Pasco, 107 Wn. App. 109, 116, 26 P.3d 955 (2001).
Here, Casey provides no statement of the case. Instead, his “Statement
of Facts” consists of a series of conclusory allegations, such as, “Petitioner filed
motions claiming domestic violence against the Appellant based on misleading
statements lacking credible evidence.” And his argument consists of general
statements of law with no meaningful analysis or references to relevant parts of
the record. Nor does Casey provide an adequate record for review of his issues.
He provides no trial transcript, trial exhibits, or the court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Instead, he includes some of the orders from which he
appeals and hundreds of pages of unrelated motions.
Because Casey provides no meaningful argument and the record before
us is insufficient to review his assignments of error, we decline to reach the

No. 87420-9-I/3
3
merits of this appeal and affirm the trial court’s orders.2
WE CONCUR:
2 This appeal was schedule for nonoral argument on November 13, 2025. Casey
filed several declarations and a motion with this court the day before and the day of his
setting date. These filings include (1) a declaration “Updating the Court Regarding
Municipal Court Proceedings and Related Events” pertaining to a December 2024
criminal citation in Marysville Municipal Court, (2) copies of the orders and motions in
the Marysville Municipal Court docket, (3) a declaration “Updating the Court on Tag
Issue” involving his vehicle’s registration tags, (4) a declaration “Updating the Courts on
[His] Housing Status,” (5) an “Emergency Motion to Expedite Review, for Emergency
Injunctive Relief, for Reconsideration of Prior Denial Without Prejudice, and to Enforce
Relief Sought in Original Motion” regarding pieces of his personal property (Emergency
Motion), (6) an “emergency” declaration in support of his Emergency Motion, and (7) a
proposed order granting his Emergency Motion. We do not consider the declarations or
Marysville docket, as they are improper attempts to supplement the record. And we
deny Casey’s Emergency Motion.