DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
25FL0210 & 25FL0233·eldorado·Civil·Domestic Violence / Custody and Support
CONTINUED

Kara Blankenship v. Adam Blankenship

Review of custody, visitation, child support, spousal support, attorney fees

Hearing date
Apr 23, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffKara Blankenship
DefendantAdam Blankenship

Attorneys

Joshua Stutzfor Plaintiff

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 23, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

2 & 3. KARA BLANKENSHIP V. ADAM BLANKENSHIP 25FL0210 & 25FL0233

On March 5, 2025, Petitioner filed a Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO). A Temporary DVRO was granted on July 1, 2025 naming Petitioner and the children as protected parties. The parties were ordered to attend Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) and a review hearing was set on the issues of custody and visitation. Thereafter, on June 30, 2025, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) also seeking custody and visitation orders. On October 2, 2025, Minors’ Counsel filed an ex parte application for emergency visitation orders, seeking a suspension in Respondent’s parenting time.

On January 15, 2026, the parties appeared before the court for hearing on all issues. At that time the parties reached agreements on custody and visitation with a review hearing set for the present date. The parties agreed to continue Petitioner’s request for child and spousal support and Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs to join with the review hearing.

On April 7, 2026, Minors’ Counsel filed and served Minors [sic] Counsel Statement.

The Department of Child Support Services filed and served its Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on April 7, 2026.

On April 13th, Respondent filed and served an Income and Expense Declaration, a Responsive Declaration to Request for Order, and two Memorandums of Points and Authorities.

Also on April 13th, Petitioner filed and served her Income and Expense Declaration, a Declaration of Attorney Joshua Stutz, and a Supplemental Declaration of Petitioner.

TENTATIVE RULING #2 & 3: PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR THE HEARING.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share