Request for Order Temporary Emergency Order; Order Requiring Access to Children's Counseling/Therapy; Request for Order of Changes Children Schools to Public in San Carlos
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 ALEXANDER C BECKMAN,) Case Number: FDI-19-792126) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 2, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 FELICE GUNAWAN BECKMAN,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, ORDER REQUIRING ACCESS TO 13 CHILDREN'S COUNSELING / THERAPY; REQUEST FOR ORDER OF CHANGES CHILDREN 14 SCHOOLS TO PUBLIC IN SAN CARLOS 15 TENTATIVE RULING 16 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 17 Court makes the following findings and orders: 18 A.
Procedural History 19 1) The parties are Petitioner Alexander C. Beckman (Father) and Respondent Felice Gunawan 20 Beckman (Mother). They share two minor children: Leo Gunawan Beckman (DOB: 07/13/16) 21 and Rose Gunawan Beckman (DOB: 08/08/18). 22 2) On February 18, 2026, Mother filed a Request for Order seeking orders for the sale of 3421 El 23 Camino Real, Unit 38, Atherton, CA. On April 13, 2026, this Request for Order was advanced 24 from May 7, 2026, and continued to June 2, 2026. 25 3) On March 5, 2026, Father filed an emergency Request for Order seeking an order requiring 26 access to children’s counseling/therapy.
Father requested an emergency order permitting the 27 children to return to therapy immediately. The Court denied Father’s request for emergency relief 28 and set the matter for regular hearing on the Court’s “Readiness Calendar” on April 13, 2026. 29
1 4) On March 5, 2026, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration, which has not been read or considered 2 by the Court because the documents were not scanned into the system and were unavailable for 3 the Court’s review. 4 5) On March 30, 2026, Mother filed a Request for Order seeking a change in the children’s schools 5 to public school in San Carlos (set on the “Readiness Calendar” on May 4, 2026). The parties 6 agreed to continue this Request for Order to be combined with Father’s pending Request for 7 Order scheduled for hearing on June 2, 2026. 8 6) On April 13, 2026, the Court set Father’s Request for Order (filed ex parte on March 5, 2026) for 9 Family Court Services (FCS) Mediation on May 18, 2026, and set further review hearing on June 10 2, 2026. 11 7) On April 24, 2026, Father filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Mother’s request for 12 change of schools to public school in San Carlos, which has been read and considered by the 13 Court.
Father asks the Court to deny Mother’s request, or in the alternative, order a Brief 14 Focused Assessment on school-choice issue. 15 8) On April 24, 2026, counsel for Father filed a declaration seeking clarification of the Court’s 16 intent related to the May 4, 2026 “Readiness Calendar” hearing, which has been read and 17 considered by the Court. 18 9) On May 4, 2026, counsel for both parties appeared, without their clients, and the Court continued 19 Mother’s Request for Order regarding the public-school issue to June 2, 2026, to be considered 20 along with the two other pending Request for Orders. 21 10) On May 13, 2026, the parties entered a stipulation regarding the sale of the Atherton property. 22 The stipulation settles the Request for Order filed by Mother on February 18, 2026, and provides 23 for removal of Mother’s Request for Order.
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?”
Accordingly, the issues raised in Mother’s Request 24 for Order filed February 18, 2026 are completely resolved. 25 11) On May 18, 2026, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration to Father’s Request for Order filed 26 March 5, 2026. Mother asks the Court deny Father’s request to allow the children to commence 27 therapy with their prior therapists and issue Family Code section 271 sanctions against Father 28 based on his assertion that the children are “thriving emotionally.” 29 B. Findings and Order
1 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 2 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 3 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 4 child(ren) is the United States. 5 2) Father’s request that the children be permitted to return to therapy is DENIED. 6 3) Given Mother’s insistence that the Court deny Father’s request that the children attend therapy to 7 address her boyfriend’s mistreatment of the children, Mother’s boyfriend, Nathan, shall NOT be 8 present during Mother’s parenting time with the children.
Mother shall prevent any and all 9 contact between Nathan and the children. If Mother allows any contact, the Court will view such 10 conduct as detrimental to the children’s wellbeing and consider awarding Father sole legal and 11 sole physical custody, including the possibility of agency supervised visitation for Mother. 12 4) Mother’s request that the children be permitted to attend public school in San Carlos is DENIED. 13 5) Father shall be responsible for payment of 100% of both children’s tuition at their current school: 14 San Francisco Waldorf Grade School.
Should Father be unable to pay 100% of both children’s 15 tuition, the children shall be immediately enrolled in a public school closes to Father’s residence. 16 6) The Court finds the issues raised in Mother’s Request for Order filed February 18, 2026 are 17 completely resolved by the stipulation regarding the sale of the Atherton property entered May 18 13, 2026. 19 7) Counsel for Father shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 20 8) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 21 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 22 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 23 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 24 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.
Failure to submit the order after hearing within 25 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 26 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 27
29