Family Law Tentative Rulings

The family court issues tentative ruling announcements on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing for specific types of motions. Tentative rulings are only provided on the Internet and posted in the clerk’s office lobby. Internet postings occur at 3:30 p.m. daily.

Parties are not required to give notice of intent to appear to preserve the right to a hearing. The tentative ruling will not become final until the hearing. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1) However, as a courtesy to the Court, and other parties or counsel with matters on calendar, notice of intended appearance or non-appearance is encouraged and may be sent by e-mail to the following address: familylaw.tentatives@stanct.org between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. If you do not receive a confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you may call to speak directly with a Calendar Clerk at 209-530-3107.

Any party filing pleadings or documents on a tentative ruling matter within five (5) days of the hearing should provide a courtesy copy to the Courtroom Clerk and the Court’s Family Law Research Attorney by placing a copy in the drop box slot on the door of Room 223, Second Floor of the main Courthouse. Failure to do so may prevent the Court from consideration of such, may result in a continuance, and/or may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(B).)

All parties and counsel are required to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute on any request, motion or hearing, with the exception of those involving domestic violence, and to exchange any documents upon which reliance will be made at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98; Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(C).) Failure to do so may result in a continuance and may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs, or both. If sufficient information regarding an adequate pre-hearing meet and confer effort is not provided in the moving and opposing papers, in the Court’s discretion, the matter may be placed at the end of the calendar and not called until the parties or counsel advise the Court that they have complied with their obligations and/or resolved the matters own motion, the Court orders Respondent to comply within thirty (30) days of this ruling and admonishes Respondent that the failure to do so may result in the striking of the Response and entry of Respondent’s default.

As both threshold findings are required, this obviates the need to consider the second finding but, for future reference should the matter ever be renewed, the Court offers the following observations gleaned from the caselaw.  The question of “sufficient means” is to be determined not by any marital standard of living test, as with spousal support, nor by any accustomed financial circumstances consistent with the child’s best interests within the parties’ ability to pay standard as with support of minor children, but rather by the likelihood that without court-ordered support the adult child will become a public charge.  (Marriage of Drake, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1154.) 

Lastly, it is important to note that, even if court-ordered adult child support is found to be necessary and appropriate, any payments ordered do not necessarily go to the party currently having physical custody of the adult child, but may in the Court’s discretion be ordered payable to a “special needs trust” or, in appropriate cases, to a conservator, guardian or legal representative of the adult child.  It should therefore not be presumed that any money Respondent is ordered to pay for adult child support will be paid to Petitioner.  Moreover, to the extent that Respondent is ordered to pay temporary spousal support and/or attorney’s fees and costs, those payments must be factored into any determination of Respondent’s ability to pay, along with a determination of Petitioner’s own ability to pay (or offsetting credit) of her co-equal duty to pay whatever amount is set for adult child support.  (See, Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 6-A, § 6:56-6:57.)

In short, the Court is inclined to deny the request for adult child support without prejudice but, as noted infra, the Court’s statutory jurisdiction over the issue is reserved and may not be terminated as a matter of law.

Date: October 14, 2026

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11: 

FL-24-000297 – PERKINS VS PERKINS

Attorney for Respondent’s Motion to Be Relieved—GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that current address verification is sufficient for mail service and that presumptively valid and timely notice and service are on file as to Respondent and all parties.

The Court further finds that sufficient grounds for involuntary withdrawal are appropriately stated in general terms to avoid compromise of attorney-client or privileged communications and that relieving counsel is unlikely to result in incurable prejudice to Respondent given the procedural posture of the case and the absence of any dispositive proceedings presently on calendar.

The effective date of the order relieving counsel shall be delayed until proof of service of the signed order on the client is filed with the Court.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).)

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: 

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25:  

FL-25-003287 – CORDOVA VS CORDOVA

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Leave to Amend, etc.—GRANTED, conditionally, and unopposed.

Proof of service of Respondent via counsel of record is on file and asserts personal delivery of the moving papers to counsel’s office on September 29, 2026, which is presumptively valid and timely service pursuant to the Order Shortening Time.  No Responsive Declaration or other opposition has been filed.

Petitioner seeks leave to amend the Petition for Dissolution to assert claims for spousal support and property division.  Absent prejudice or extreme delay, judicial policy and Legislative intent strongly favor the liberal grant of leave to amend in order to resolve cases on their merits and, to the extent feasible, resolve all claims and defenses of the parties in a single action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1) [“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading”]; Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) 

Here, the case is relatively recent and no matters have been adjudicated to date.  As such, neither delay nor prejudice appear to warrant denial.  However, procedurally, a proposed amended pleading must be filed and served when leave to amend is not a matter of right and Petitioner did not do so.    Nevertheless, given that the Judicial Council has mandatory forms of pleading for both the Petition and the Response in dissolution cases, the amendment at issue is simply a matter of checking the appropriate boxes, rather than pleading the “ultimate facts” required to state a cause of action as in general civil cases.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rules  3.1324(a)(1), 5.74(c)(1); see, FL-100, FL-120.) 

Accordingly, leave to amend will only be granted as to spousal support and property division.  The pleadings presently agree on all other issues and these allegations generally constitute judicial admissions by the parties.  Thus, leave to amend is expressly not granted for the purpose of contradicting them.  Petitioner shall submit a proposed First Amended Petition for the Court’s review and approval within ten (10) days of this order.  If approved, the Clerk shall issue a Summons thereon and Petitioner shall then file and serve the First Amended Petition and file proof of service with the Court.  Respondent shall have the usual time to file a responsive pleading and no default may be entered against either party without further court order.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.74(c)(2).) 

.