CAITLIN TALBOT v. SRIVATSAN SRINIVASAN

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 CAITLIN TALBOT,) Case Number: FPT-23-378236) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 5, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 SRIVATSAN SRINIVASAN,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME) 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 The parties shall appear in person or via Zoom video at 9am on 5/5/2026 in Department 404. If a 15 party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote 16 Appearance in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 17

18 A. Procedural History 19 1) Caitlin Talbot (Mother) and Srivatsan Srinivasan (Father) have one minor child together, Suzanne 20 (Zana), who is almost 7 years old (DOB 5/6/2019). The parties have joint legal and joint physical 21 custody of Zana and currently follow a 2-2-5-5 parenting time schedule. 22 2) On 2/11/2026, Mother filed a request for: (1) “sole decision-making about therapy” and “tie- 23 breaking authority in health/legal matters given the obstacles I continue to face in trying to obtain 24 therapy for Zana”; (2) Zana to attend therapy as recommended "by her pediatrician (and endorsed 25 by her rheumatologist)”; (3) modification of physical custody to an alternating week schedule; (4) 26 Father to attend counseling so he can “understand that punishing Zana when she has an emotional 27 response (telling her she can’t cry, telling her he won’t play with her if she talks about me, telling 28 her this is her life and get used to it) is detrimental to Zana"; (5) Zana to participate in one 29 consistent weekend activity; (6) a camp schedule during summer breaks; and (7) exchange of

1 travel itineraries when traveling overnight outside of the Bay Area with Zana (one week in 2 advance for 1-3 night trips and a month in advance for longer trips). She states Zana “sobs 3 deeply” when she leaves Mother and returns to Mother in “shambles” after spending time with 4 Father. She states that Zana has been asking to spend less time with Father and that the stress she 5 is experiencing exacerbates the autoimmune condition she has. Mother attaches Zana’s medical 6 records in support of her request. 7 3) Father has filed a responsive declaration in which he asks the Court to deny all of Mother’s 8 requests and grant his request for an order requiring the parties to lodge and serve medical records 9 or request to file them under seal. As to therapy for Zana, he states the issue is moot because the 10 parties have already agreed to have her attend. He states he never opposed therapy; instead, he 11 simply wished to be included in the process because Mother unilaterally reached out to Kaiser 12 and conducted an intake. As to physical custody, Father notes this is the third modification 13 request Mother has filed since April 2024 and that the Court has declined to change the 50/50 14 schedule, most recently in February 2025. He states that Zana is a happy, well-adjusted child and 15 that he has only seen her have age-appropriate minor tantrums or crying episodes. He has also 16 never heard Zana say she wants to spend less time with him. He expresses concern that Mother 17 “may be planting ideas in Zana’s head”; he states that Zana once confided in him that Mother told 18 her to tell the pediatrician that she wanted more time with Mother. He believes Mother has also 19 inappropriately discussed matters regarding the family law case with or in front of Zana. 20 4) After the parties attended mediation, Father filed a supplemental declaration noting that Mother, 21 for the first time at mediation, asked for a Tier II interview of Zana’s therapist. He opposes this 22 request, noting that the therapy process should be confidential and that Zana has attended only 23 two therapy sessions. Mother filed a reply in which she denies coaching Zana. She states that 24 Zana is an intelligent, articulate child who knows what she wants and is able to express her 25 wishes but is not comfortable telling Father how she feels. Mother asks for a Tier II interview and 26 lists 10 individuals she believes has relevant information. 27 B. Findings and Orders 28 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 29 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in