Other Review Hearing
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 CHRISTOPHER ZUCCHI,) Case Number: FPT-24-378423) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 2, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHRISTINA ONOPA,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 OTHER REVIEW HEARING 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14
15 The parties are ordered to appear in person or via Zoom video at 9AM on 7/2/2026 in 16 Department 404. If a party chooses to appear by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and 17 Instructions for Remote Appearance in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 18
19 A. Procedural History 20 1) Petitioner Christopher Zucchi (Father) and Respondent Christina Onopa (Mother) have one minor 21 child together, Jayden (DOB 2/15/21, age 5). Mother has sole legal and physical custody of 22 Jayden, and Father has one hour or weekly supervised visits through Rally Family Visitation 23 Services (Rally).
24 2) On 6/24/2025, the Court ordered the parties, who were on Rally’s waiting list, to accept Rally’s 25 next available spot. The Court also ordered that Father shall have FaceTime calls with Jayden 26 every Monday at 5pm for about 5 to 10 minutes.
27 3) On 1/8/2026, Father filed an update declaration stating Mother was interfering with his FaceTime 28 calls. On 1/15/2026, the Court maintained the Rally order and modified the FaceTime call order 29 1 to have Father initiate the calls, for the calls to take place from 5PM to 5:15PM on Mondays, and 2 for Father not to smoke during the calls.
3 4) On 4/6/2026, Father filed a declaration requesting unsupervised alternating weekends, from 4 Friday through Sunday. He stated he had complied with all court orders, maintained regular and 5 positive contact with Jayden, and had demonstrated his ability to provide a safe, stable, and 6 supportive environment for him. Mother opposed the request stating she had received a 7 threatening text from Father and was going to file a police report or seek a restraining order 8 against Father. She stated that due to Father’s substance abuse and unpredictability, she feared for 9 her and Jayden’s safety and had installed cameras outside of her home. Mother stated that Father 10 was reaching out to her outside of the court-ordered schedule, including at night, with matters that 11 are unrelated to the child.
12 5) At a 4/16/2026 hearing, Mother asked to have Father’s visits suspended until he submitted to drug 13 testing. Father responded that he agrees to drug test and will submit the test results to the Court. 14 The Court ordered Father to submit to drug testing, maintained the Rally order, and ordered 15 FaceTime calls on Mondays and Wednesdays at 5PM, with calls to be initiated by Father. The 16 Court further ordered that the parties shall continue to communicate by text message only and 17 that all communication shall be peaceful and respectful and only about visitation and FaceTime 18 calls. The Court set a review hearing for 7/2/2026.
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?”
19 6) Both parties have filed update declarations, and Father has submitted a negative drug test result to 20 the Court. In addition, the Court has received and reviewed a report from Rally summarizing 21 Father’s supervised visits.
22 B. Findings and Orders 23 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 24 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 25 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 26 child is the United States.
27 2) The parties are ordered to appear in person or via Zoom video at 9AM on 7/2/2026 in 28 Department 404. 29