Kopanicky v. Kopanicky

This matter was continued for custody/visitation review regarding the parties’ timeshare with their son, Patrick (DOB 12/8/2015). At the last Court hearing Father stated he had more information to provide, so the parties were re-referred to Family Court Services (“FCS”) for the current hearing. Father provided FCS with 2024-2026 reports from Child & Family Services (“CFS,” formerly known as “CPS”) and a 5/11/2026 letter from Child Therapy Institute, where Patrick has started with a private therapist.

Mother, Father and Patrick were all interviewed by FCS. Mother still lives in Sacramento, and Father moved from San Anselmo to Sausalito. Per the Court’s Findings and Order After Hearing filed 4/24/2026, Patrick lives primarily with Father and is to be in Mother’s care on the 1st, 3rd and 5th (if any) weekends of the month from Saturday at 10:00 am to Sunday at 6:00 pm. Mother reports that she is unable to do three weekends a month since she lives in Sacramento. She looks forward to more time with Patrick in the summer and plans to have him for the second half of the summer.

The Court has reviewed and considered the current FCS report, as well as prior FCS reports, and as well as both parties’ positions. The Court is concerned about Patrick while in Mother’s care given the number complaints made to CFS and that so few of the complaints are actually investigated (only 5 out of 33 referrals). Of the 5 cases investigated, all allegations were deemed to be unfounded, except for one for emotional abuse, which was “inconclusive.” As a result, no cases have been opened. Patrick consistently reports verbal and physical abuse by his Mother and does not want to be with her. It is hoped that we will gain a better understanding now that Patrick is in therapy.

FL1703773

Having reviewed and considered the updated information, as well as the current and former FCS Reports & Recommendations, the Court and finds that it is in Patrick’s best interest to adopt the current FCS recommendations, as modified below. Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

1. All current orders shall remain in effect with the following additions and modifications:

2. The current orders regarding the school year timeshare and Holidays/Vacations (except for summer) shall remain in effect.

3. Summer of 2026: The parties will not equally share the summer with Patrick. Patrick shall be with Mother on the following schedule (and with Father the remainder of the time):

• Monday, July 13th at 12:00 to Monday, July 20th at 12:00 • Monday, August 3rd at 12:00 to Monday, August 10th at 12:00

4. Patrick shall continue in counseling at Child Therapy Institute at the frequency and duration recommended by the institute. Both parents shall follow any recommendations made by the counselor.

5. The family is re-referred to Family Court Services, with a review hearing set in Department E at 9:00 am on 10/23/2026. A custody review hearing is set for October 23, 2026, at 9:00 am in Department E. The Court requests that FCS speak with Patrick’s therapist before preparing its next Report & Recommendations.

SO ORDERED.

The Court will prepare the order per Rule 5.125, CA Rules of Court.

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.