Custody and visitation
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 18, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
7. KRISTEN REIMAN V. SCOTT REIMAN 25FL0453
On May 4, 2026, Minor’s Counsel filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody and visitation orders. Petitioner filed her Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on May 4th.
The request was originally ruled on ex parte, at which time the court referred the parties to an emergency set Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) appointment and set a review hearing for the present date. Pending the review hearing, the court granted Petitioner temporary sole legal and physical custody of the minor, Helena. Respondent was ordered to have no contact with the minor except at the direction, and under the supervision, of the minor’s therapist.
The RFO, ex parte orders, and all other required documents were served on May 4th.
On May 8th, Petitioner filed a Declaration Re: Proof of Completion. It was served on May 6th.
Respondent filed and served his Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on June 5, 2026.
The parties attended CCRC on May 19, 2026 and were able to reach some agreements. A report with the agreements and recommendations was prepared and mailed to the parties on June 5, 2026.
Minor’s Counsel filed and served her reply declaration on June 8th. Petitioner filed and served an updating declaration the same day.
Petitioner filed and served a reply to the CCRC report on June 12th.
Minor’s Counsel asks that Petitioner be given temporary sole legal and sole physical custody. She asks that there be a no contact order between the minor and Respondent pending further order of the court.
Petitioner is in agreement with the requests made by Minor’s Counsel.
Respondent opposes the requests and “object[s] to hearsay on all statements received by the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s counsel and the Minor’s Counsel.”
The objection is overruled. “Grounds of objection to admission of evidence must be stated with reasonable certainty, and objection must specify particular evidence which is sought to be excluded.” People ex Rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Alexander, 212 Cal. App. 2d
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 18, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
84 (1963). Blanket objections such as “all statements received” are improper and thus will not be sustained.
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?”
Regarding custody and visitation, the court is concerned with the findings in the CCRC report and is not willing to make such drastic orders without further information. The parties are ordered to appear to select dates for an evidentiary hearing.
TENATIVE RULING #7: RESPONDENT’S OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR TO SELECT DATES FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.