| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Modification of child custody; Sanctions
6. KATRINA NEILSEN V. MORGAN HOLLIS 24FL0907
Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on October 10, 2025, seeking modification of the current child custody and parenting plan orders. Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration on October 31, 2025. Petitioner was mail served on November 1, 2025.
Petitioner is seeking sole legal and physical custody of the minor as well as limiting Respondent’s parenting time to his days off work. Petitioner also seeks an order preventing Respondent from bringing the minor to work.
Respondent requests the current orders remain in full force and effect.
Both parties attended Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) on November 7th and were unable to reach any agreements. A report with recommendations was filed with the court on December 19, 2025. Copies were mailed to the parties the same day.
This matter came before the court for hearing on the RFO on January 8th at which time the court adopted the CCRC recommendations, referred the parties back to CCRC for the minor to be interviewed, and a review hearing was set for the present date. Parties were ordered to file Supplemental Declarations no later than 10 days prior to the date of the review hearing.
The parties attended CCRC on November 7, 2025. After interviewing the child, a report with recommendations was prepared on February 18th and attached to the December 19th CCRC report. It was mailed to the parties on February 18, 2026.
Respondent filed and served a Supplemental Declaration on March 4th.
The court has reviewed the recommendations contained in the CCRC report and finds them to be in the best interests of the minor. They are hereby adopted as the orders of the court. This includes the recommendations in the December 19, 2025 report and the February 18, 2026 Child Interview addendum.
Respondent requests sanctions pursuant to Family Code § 3027.1, however the court finds this to be outside the scope of the original RFO. Sanctions pursuant to this section require a motion and proper notice to the opposing party.
Respondent is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH) however this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.
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?”
TENTATIVE RULING #6: THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE CCRC REPORT AND FINDS THEM TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE MINOR. THEY ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AS THE ORDERS OF THE COURT. THIS INCLUDES THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE DECEMBER 19, 2025 REPORT AND THE FEBRUARY 18, 2026 CHILD INTERVIEW ADDENDUM.
RESPONDENT REQUESTS SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FAMILY CODE § 3027.1, HOWEVER THE COURT FINDS THIS TO BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL RFO. SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION REQUIRE A MOTION AND PROPER NOTICE TO THE OPPOSING PARTY.
RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH) HOWEVER THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.