Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody and parenting time
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 30, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
13. RILEY BEBITA V. NICHOLAS BEBITA 26FL0071
Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on February 5, 2026, seeking custody and parenting time orders. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) with an appointment on March 4, 2026, and a review hearing on April 30, 2026.
Upon review of the file, the court finds there is no Proof of Service showing the Petition and Summons have been properly served. As such, the court has not obtained jurisdiction over the parties. Further, the Proof of Service does not show Respondent was served with the referral to CCRC.
Only Petitioner appeared at CCRC. As such, a single parent report was filed with the court. Copies were mailed to the parties on April 23rd.
The court drops the matter from calendar, as the court has not obtained jurisdiction over the parties.
TENTATIVE RULING #13: THE MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE COURT’S LACK OF JURISDICTION.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”