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: July 13, 2026

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

8005328 – REEVES VS REEVES

Respondent’s Request for Order re “Vacate Orders,” etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

Respondent has filed an appeal that is presently pending and in which a default in designation of the record was recently cured.  Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Respondent’s request until that appeal has been decided or dismissed, and the remittitur issues from the Fifth District Court of Appeal returning jurisdiction to the Court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 916(a) [“…the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order…”], emphasis added.) 

FL-19-003455 – MALEK VS MALEK

Respondent’s Request for Order re “Enforce Judgment,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration disputes Respondent’s factual allegations regarding non-compliance with orders regarding custodial accounts.  This factual dispute necessitates a hearing.  Both parties are reminded of the duty to meet and confer in good faith as to every issue raised in a request for order, and to exchange any and all documentary or other evidence on which either side intends to rely for proof of any material fact at the hearing.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a),(b).)

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-25-001274 – POULOS VS POULOS

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

While the Court finds that the grounds for involuntary withdrawal have been sufficiently averred, and that granting relief is unlikely to result in prejudice to the client given the current procedural posture, counsel for Respondent served the moving papers by mail and electronically, but counsel’s declaration concedes that verification of the address for mail service has not been possible within the preceding three months and there is no consent for electronic service on file for Respondent.  This is technically insufficient service under the Rules of Court but the Court may override this for good cause and invites counsel for Respondent, and Respondent should the client have received actual notice, to appear and be heard.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(d).)

FL-24-002432 – BAHL VS BAHL

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Compelling Further Responses to Discovery, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

A motion to compel further discovery being short-set an hour before the date and time that trial is set to commence is, to say the least, unusual and concerning.  The Court has questions and counsel are invited to appear and address them.