Request for Order for custody/parenting plan modification
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
19. SARAH SCHMIDT V. MIKE SCHMIDT PFL20180569
Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking modification of the current child custody and parenting plan orders on April 14, 2026. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) with an appointment on May 14, 2026 and a review hearing on July 9, 2026. Upon review of the court file, there is an address verification filed, however, there is no Proof of Service showing Petitioner was properly served.
Only Respondent appeared at the CCRC appointment. As such, a single parent report was filed with the court on May 14, 2026. Copies were mailed to the parties the same day.
The court drops the matter from calendar due to the lack of proper service.
All prior orders remain in full force and effect.
TENTATIVE RULING #19: THE COURT DROPS THE MATTER FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE LACK OF PROPER SERVICE. ALL PRIOR ORDERS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
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.
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?”