Review of reports hearing
This matter is set for review hearing regarding the parties’ timeshare schedule with respect to their twin boys, George and Gus (DOB 8/23/2022). On 6/5/2026 Respondent/Mother filed an Update Declaration in which she proposes a step-up schedule.
The parties were both interviewed by Family Court Services (“FCS”) on 5/20/2026, and FCS filed its Report & Recommendations with the Court on 6/3/2026.
Pursuant to the Court’s 4/9/2026 Findings and Order After Hearing, the parties share joint legal and physical custody of George and Gus. As of 5/5/2026, Mother’s time with the boys (unsupervised) increased to Tuesday and Thursday from 1:00 pm to 9:00 am the following day and every Sunday from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm.
Father reports that he is no longer concerned about the children’s safety and that things are going very well. He states that the parties are moving toward a 50%/50% schedule, and both he and Mother agree that they want the progression in Mother’s time to go smoothly for the boys.
The parties are working with a co-parenting counselor, Ariella Goodwin Fisher, MFT, whom they wish to act as a recommending mediator in lieu of the Court’s Family Court Services (“FCS”) Custody Recommending Counselor. However, Marin County is a Recommending County (see Family Code §3183; Marin County Rule, Family, 7.17.A). Before the Court can accept her recommendations in lieu of a FCS custody recommending counselor, per Family Code §3162(b), Ms. Goodwin Fisher must verify she has the same qualifications as the Court’s custody recommending counselors as set forth in Family Code §1815. Without a Declaration from Ms. Goodwin Fisher’s attesting to these qualifications, the Court cannot sign the Stipulation & Order as submitted by the parties.
Having reviewed and considered the written submissions by the parties, as well as the FCS Report & Recommendations, the Court finds that it is in the best interests of the children to adopt the FCS Recommendations as modified and set forth below. Therefore, the Court orders as follows:
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?”
1. All current orders shall remain in effect with the following additions/modifications: 2. Beginning 6-12-26 the boys shall be with Mother on the following schedule (and with Andrew the remainder of the time):
a. Every Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. to Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. b. Every Thursday at 9:00 a.m. to Friday at 9:00 a.m. c. Every Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
3. Beginning 8-1-26 the boys shall be with Mother on the following schedule (and with Andrew the remainder of the time) Week #1 and Week #2 shall be rotating:
a. Week #1: Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. (or after school) until Thursday at 9:00 a.m. (or return to school). b. Week #2: Friday at 9:00 a.m. (or after school) until Sunday at 5:30 p.m.
4. Any changes to the schedule, or any additional time for either child to be with either parent, shall occur as mutually agreed upon by the parents.
SO ORDERED.
Counsel for Father to prepare the order.
Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is selfrepresented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Court website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.