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: 10/20/2026

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

FL-25-002068 – RUMAYOR VS RUMAYOR

Attorney for Petitioner’s Motion to Be Relieved—HEARING REQUIRED.

Counsel’s declaration states that he was unable to confirm the client’s current address and proof of service on the client was by mail and electronic mail, but there is no notice or consent on record by the client for electronic service and no subsequent declaration of successful mail service has been filed by counsel for Petitioner.  Accordingly, counsel shall appear and satisfy the Court that the requirements for valid and timely notice and service under the Rules of Court have been met, unless Petitioner personally appears and acknowledges such or waives any objection.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(d)(2) [“As used in this rule, “current” means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies”], emphasis added.) 

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: 

FL-21-001352 – MARTINE-RAMIREZ VS ESTRADA-RAMIREZ

Respondent’s Request for Order re Child Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

The child support request is not eligible for tentative ruling and a hearing is necessary.

Regarding the request for “clarification,” there is no statutory or common law authority for a motion “to clarify,” and the Court must remain neutral and may not render “advisory” rulings.  That said, to the extent that the testimony and evidence at the hearing supports Respondent’s allegation that the bankruptcy proceeding contemplated by the Findings and Order After Hearing of December 8, 2023, was never effectuated and that no discharge or stay has taken effect, the Court may exercise discretion to treat this as a material change of circumstance supporting Respondent’s requested modification of child support.  Petitioner has not filed a current Income and Expense Declaration and is ordered to prepare and sign one prior to the hearing, and to provide copies to the Court and Respondent at the hearing, to be served and filed hereafter.

FL-24-000061 – PEREZ VS LOPEZ

Attorney for Petitioner’s Motion to Be Relieved—HEARING REQUIRED.

The grounds for involuntary withdrawal are sufficiently stated and there appears to be no foreseeable prejudice to the client in granting counsel’s motion.  However, there is no separately filed proof of address verification and counsel’s declaration attests that service on the client was by mail at the client’s last known address and by electronic mail.  No notice or consent appears on record for electronic service by Petitioner and none was provided with counsel’s motion.  Accordingly, counsel must appear and satisfy the Court that current address confirmation was sufficiently made or that other circumstances warrant the Court’s discretion in dispensing with this requirement unless Petitioner also appears and acknowledges timely service and notice.  If satisfactory, the Court is inclined to grant the motion but the effective date of the order relieving counsel will be delayed until proof of service of the signed order on the client is filed with the Court.  (Cal. Rules of Ct, rule 3.1462(e).) 

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

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.