Alena E. Calder v. Ludwig C. Calder

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 ALENA E. CALDER,) Case Number: FDI-25-801764) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 23, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 LUDWIG C. CALDER,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE CHILD SUPPORT, ORDER SHORTENING TIME 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Alena Calder (Mother) and Respondent Ludwig Calder (Father).

They 18 share six minor children: Elias (7/1/10), Liora (10/7/11), David (10/25/14), Tanya (8/5/17), 19 Charles (1/16/19), and Sariel (3/27/22). 20 2) On 9/2/25, the Court issued a temporary restraining order wherein Father is the protected party 21 and Mother is the restrained party. The Court awarded Father sole legal and sole physical custody 22 of the minor children. 23 3) On 12/3/25, the Court granted Mother supervised visitation with the minor children for 2 hours 24 per week. 25 4) On 4/28/26, Father filed a Request for Order and supportive declaration seeking guideline child 26 support based on Father’s 100% timeshare and hardships including the special needs of the 27 children; (b) imputation of income to Mother; (c) Watts/Epstein credits for debt incurred related 28 to domestic violence allegations against Mother; (d) an order compelling Mother to submit an 29 accurate Income and Expense Declaration (form FL-150); (e) an order compelling Mother to

1 comply with the 10/23/25 order to return identity documents; and (g) Family Code section 271 2 sanctions. Father appears to simultaneously seek guideline child support while alleging that above 3 guideline child support is appropriate in this case, in part, due to Elias’ special medical needs. 4 Father states the amount he pays Mother’s own father in rent is a financial hardship. Father 5 alleges that Mother has obstructed the process for Father to receive IHSS payments for his care of 6 Elias.

Father alleges Mother’s Income and Expense Declaration is inaccurate. 7 5) On 6/8/26, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Father’s Request for Order. 8 Mother alleges Father misrepresents his own income and disputes Father’s claims related to IHSS 9 payments. Mother alleges Father has not paid rent since 8/1/25. 10 6) On 6/8/26, Mother filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 11 7) On 6/16/26, Father filed a Reply Declaration reiterating his requests. 12 8) On 6/16/26, Father filed a Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 13 9) The Court notes that related case no.

FDV-25-801764 is set for trial in Dept. 403 on 7/28/26, 14 7/29/26, 7/30/26, and 8/4/26. 15 B. Findings and Order 16 1) Father’s request for guideline child support is GRANTED. 17 2) Effective 4/28/26, and in accordance with the XSpouse report attached hereto and incorporated 18 herein, Mother shall pay Father $1,435 in guideline monthly child support by the 1st of every 19 month. Payments shall commence on 7/1/26. 20 3) Mother owes Father $2,870 in guideline child support arrears for the period of 4/28/26 – 6/30/26. 21 Mother shall pay Father an additional $250 until this balance is paid in full. 22 4) The Court declines to impute income to Mother at this time. 23 5) The XSpouse inputs are based on the parties’ respective Income and Expense Declarations, which 24 they each signed under penalty of perjury. 25 6) The Court reserves jurisdiction over this child support order retroactive to the filing date of the 26 petition (i.e., 8/1/25). 27 10) In so far as Father seeks restitution under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), such 28 relief is not ripe for adjudication as restitution under the DVPA is a statutory remedy only 29