Third-Party's Motion re Joinder
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: FL-25-002057 - WILSON VS WILSON Petitioner's Request for Order re "Other"-- HEARING REQUIRED.
The parties shall exchange any and all documents or other evidence on which either intends to rely for proof of any material fact at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(b).) The Court may issue an Indicated Ruling prior to the hearing or, in the Court's discretion, may call the matter and hear testimony and argument before either ruling on the order request or taking the matter under submission.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: FL-26-000872 - HOYOS VS VARGAS-GUZMAN Third-Party's Motion re Joinder-- DENIED, without prejudice.
There is no proof of service on file for either Petitioner or Respondent, as required. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)
That said, even if both parties were to appear and waive service, Third-Party is advised that claiming a long-standing relationship as a grandparent of a minor child is not, by itself, sufficient to grant joinder and allow the grandparent to seek child visitation rights. Here, the parties are unmarried and the most recent custody order provides for Petitioner's sole legal and physical custody.
Consequently, if the joinder motion is refiled and properly served, but Petitioner objects to court-ordered visitation with Third-Party, then Third-Party will have to prove by clear and convincing evidence at a long-cause hearing that such visitation is in the minor child's best interests because Petitioner has a constitutional right to parental autonomy in making decisions concerning the minor child's best interests. (Fam. Code Sec. 3104(a)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(1)(B); Local Rules, rule 7.08(B)(2); In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 222.
FL-26-001204 - SAMATUA VS SAMATUA Petitioner's Request for Order re Sale of Residence -- HEARING REQUIRED.
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?”