Family Law Tentative Rulings
Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements
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 matter s 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: 10/26/2026
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:
FL-20-003048 – PHAM VS PHAM (a)-(c)—HEARING REQUIRED.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:
FL-22-000818 – SCHULTZ VS SCHULTZ (a) and (b)—HEARING REQUIRED.
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-26-002484 – DAVIS VS MALLOY
Petitioner's Request for Hearing and Application to Cancel (Set Aside) Voluntary Declaration of Parentage or Paternity — HEARING REQUIRED.
Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration opposing Petitioner's request to set aside the voluntary declaration of parentage (VDOP), asserting Petitioner lacks standing and disputing the allegations supporting cancellation. Respondent submitted a copy of the VDOP executed by himself and the minor's now-deceased mother, reflecting filing with the Department of Child Support Services, together with genetic testing results supporting his biological parentage.
The Court intends to take judicial notice of the pleadings and procedural posture in the related parentage action, Case No. FL-26-001106, pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(d) and 455, but not for the truth of disputed factual allegations therein.
A properly executed and filed VDOP has the same force and effect as a judgment of parentage. (Fam. Code, §§ 7573(d), 7644(b); Kevin Q. v. Lauren W. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1132.)
As to standing, Family Code § 7577(a) permits a nonsignatory to challenge a VDOP if the person has standing under § 7630. Section 7630(c) expressly authorizes certain parentage actions by a parent of a deceased presumed parent. Here, Petitioner alleges under penalty of perjury that he is the father of the minor's deceased mother, who executed the VDOP with Respondent. Accordingly, Petitioner has identified a potential statutory basis for standing under §§ 7577(a) and 7630(c). Whether the deceased mother qualifies as a presumed parent under § 7611, and whether Petitioner satisfies the applicable statutory requirements, remain subject to determination. The Court therefore reserves its finding on standing.
As to the merits, even if Petitioner establishes standing, he bears the burden under Family Code § 7577(f) of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a legally and factually sufficient basis for setting aside the VDOP. Further, pursuant to § 7577(g), the Court may grant the application only upon finding that cancellation is in the minor's best interests after consideration of the applicable statutory factors. Petitioner's allegations regarding Respondent's placement of the minor with relatives, purported denial of parentage, and disputes concerning custody do not, without additional competent evidence, establish entitlement to the requested relief. Respondent disputes these allegations, asserts biological and legal parentage, and expressly opposes cancellation.
Accordingly, the Court is inclined to deny Petitioner's application without prejudice based on the present showing, or continue the matter upon a showing of good cause for further briefing and/or evidentiary presentation concerning standing and the legal and factual basis for relief under Family Code § 7577(f)–(g). Respondent's request for dismissal based on lack of standing is reserved pending determination of that threshold issue.
HEARING REQUIRED.
