Child Custody, Visitation, Enter Conforming First Amended TRO
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 PAMELA GREEN SIECK,) Case Number: FDV-26-819014) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 2, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SIECK,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME), ENTER 13 CONFORMING FIRST AMENDED TRO PER 4/1/2026 ORDER; OR OST 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A.
Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner, Pamela Green Sieck (Mother) and Respondent, Christopher Michael 19 Sieck (Father). The minor child subject to this proceeding is Eugene Michael Sieck(DOB 20 02/07/20). 21 2) On June 9, 2026, Father filed an ex parte Request for Temporary Emergency Orders for an 22 interim custody and visitation schedule. In particular, Father was seeking the following orders: 23 a. Sign and enter the attached [Proposed] First Amended Restraining Order; conform DV- 24 140 custody/Visitation to the Napa Final Statement of Decision per the 04/01/26 25 supersession order; life DV-140 Item 5; add Our Family Wizard exception at DV-110 26 Item 11(b)(3); preserve all other protective provisions; 27 b.
Alternatively, set hearing on shortened time in Dept. 403 by June 12, 2026, so the order 28 entered before June 15, 2026, so the order is entered before June 15, 2026 at 8:00 a.m., 29 when Respondent’s parenting week begins under the Napa Schedule.
1 c. At minimum, refer to Dept. 405 for determination at the June 15, 2026, 1:30 p.m., 2 hearing, with the first exchange upon entry that day. 3 3) On June 9, 2026, the Court called the parties to hear the matter and the Court issued the following 4 orders: 5 a. Father’s visitation shall continue to be temporarily suspended. 6 b. Counsel for Mother indicated Judge Chan intended to review the child custody/visitation 7 issues at the June 15, 2026, trial setting conference. 8 c. So as not to have conflicting orders, and in light of the new information received from 9 Mother’s counsel regarding a criminal investigation of Father, this Court will grant 10 Father’s request for an Order Shortening Time for Service and Hearing.
The 11 custody/visitation issues shall be heard on June 15, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., in Department 405. 12 4) On June 15, 2026, Judge Chan issued the following orders relevant to child custody and 13 visitation: 14 a. Respondent’s RFO filed on June 9, 2026 is re-set for hearing on 07/02/09 at 9:00 a.m., in 15 Department 403. 16 b. The Court ordered both parties to attend remote FCS mediation on June 30, 2026 at 9:00 17 a.m. with Juanita Quintero for Respondent’s requests for visitation. 18 c. The Court ordered Tier 2 for FCS mediator to contact Sgt.
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?”
Foxworth, (private contact 19 information not included herein) to find out the status of the criminal investigation. Both 20 parties waived confidentiality for FCS mediator to conduct Tier 2 interview. 21 d. Mother requests for minor’s counsel and will to pay for costs. Parties are ordered to meet 22 and confer on this issue. If no agreement reached, request for appointment of minor’s 23 counsel shall be addressed at the hearing on July 2, 2026. 24 5) On June 29, 2026, Mother filed a “Declaration of Jacqueline Singer, PhD,” which has not been 25 read nor considered by the Court.
The declaration is hearsay not subject to any exception. 26 6) On June 29, 2026, FCS completed a Tier 2 Report, which has been read and considered by the 27 Court. 28 B. Findings and Order 29
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) The Court confirms the orders from Napa County contained within the Judgment filed in Napa 6 County on May 15, 2026, which provide that both parents shall share joint legal and joint 7 physical custody of the minor child, Eugene Sieck (02/07/20).
As this Court stated previously, it 8 will defer to the orders issued out of Napa County. 9 3) As to parenting time, the court will also defer to the Napa County orders, which state as follows: 10 “Commencing the week of March 29, 2026, Mother and Father will alternate custody of 11 Eugene on a week on/week off basis, with exchanges to take place at Eugene’s school every 12 Monday at start of school.” 13 4) Given that Father has missed a significant amount of time with Eugene, the Court orders the 14 Father shall have care and custody of the minor child from July 2, 2026 through Monday, July 15 13, 2026.
Thereafter, the parties shall follow the Napa County Judgment filed on May 15, 2026. 16 Father shall take custody of the minor child at Noon on July 2, 2026. Counsel for Mother to 17 coordinate exchange location with Father. 18 5) This Court confirms and adopts ALL of the orders issued by Napa County Superior Court in the 19 Judgment filed May 15, 2026. 20 6) The Court hereby orders Counsel for Mother to prepare a First (1st) Amended TRO, which 21 incorporates the child custody and visitation orders provided herein.
The TRO is hereby 22 amended to: 23 a. Remove the minor child as a protected party; 24 b. Remove any reference to “the persons in 3” within item #11. 25 c. Check boxes b and b(1) on item #11. 26 d. Remove any reference to “the persons in 3” within item #12. 27 e. Check boxes b and b(1) within item #12. 28 f. Amend item #15 to comport with the Napa County Child Custody and Visitation orders. 29
1 7) The Court hereby orders Counsel for Mother to prepare and Amended DV-116, which continues 2 the First (1st) Amended TRO to December 11, 2026. 3 8) Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Findings and Order After hearing. 4 9) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 5 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 6 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 7 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 8 proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing within 9 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 10 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 11
15
19
23
27
29