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.

Date: July 3, 2025

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

FL-19-001239 – ACEVES VS MITCHELL

Third-Party’s Motion re Joinder, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

Since conditionally non-modifiable sole custody has been awarded to Petitioner, joinder may not be ordered until the Court first determines whether visitation should be granted over Petitioner’s objection, who has a constitutional right to parental autonomy in making decisions regarding the best interests of her minor children.  (Fam. Code § 3104(a)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(1)(B); Local Rules, rule 7.08(B)(2); In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 222.)

As Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration strongly objects to court-ordered visitation, the matter will be set for long-cause trial at the hearing. Because the parties are unmarried and Petitioner has sole legal and physical custody of the minor child, there is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that visitation with Third-Party is not in the best interests of the minor child unless and until Third-Party introduces clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. (Fam. Code § 3104(f); Harris, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 248; Rich v. Thatcher (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1181 [clear and convincing evidence burden essential to constitutionality of statutory grandparent visitation over fit custodial parents’ objections]; Ian J. v. Peter M. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 189, 205-209 [trial court abused discretion in failing to apply clear and convincing evidence standard and to consider “the breadth of circumstances a parent may reasonably consider in deciding to limit or prevent contact with a grandparent”].)

If Third-Party is willing to abide by the terms and conditions that Petitioner believes are in the minor child’s best interests, then the Court may exercise discretion to refer the matter to mediation and, if a voluntary agreement is reached, then the Court has authority to grant joinder and approve the parties’ stipulated visitation order.  But if Third-Party insists—as her declaration seems to indicate—that she should not be subject to Petitioner’s limits on grandparent visitation, and that the Court should order grandparent visitation over Petitioner’s objections, then no mediation will be set and joinder will not be granted unless the Court finds in Third-Party’s favor after trial.

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 Sweena Pannu in Department #14:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.