DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24FL1139·eldorado·Civil·Child Custody and Visitation
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED (Parties ordered to appear)

Hollie Wallace v. Jason Wallace

Petitioner's RFO for child custody and property division

Hearing date
May 14, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHollie Wallace
DefendantJason Wallace

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 14, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

20. HOLLIE WALLACE V. JASON WALLACE 24FL1139

Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on December 18, 2025, seeking child custody and parenting plan orders, as well as orders regarding the division of property. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) with an appointment on January 15, 2026 and a review hearing on March 12, 2026. Proof of Service shows Respondent was mail served on December 24, 2025. However, the Proof of Service does not show Respondent was served with a blank FL-320 form.

Only Petitioner appeared at the CCRC appointment on January 15th. As such, a single parent report was filed with the court on January 15th. Copies were mailed to the parties the same day.

Petitioner filed a Declaration on January 22, 2026. There is no Proof of Service for this document, therefore, the court has not considered it.

Petitioner appeared at the hearing on March 12, 2026. Respondent failed to appear. The court found good cause to continue the hearing to allow Petitioner to perfect service. The court set a further review hearing for May 14, 2026, and directed Petitioner to serve all the required documents as well as a copy of the minute order from the March 12, 2026 hearing on Respondent.

Petitioner filed a Proof of Service as well as an address verification showing Respondent was served by overnight delivery on April 21, 2026.

Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration.

The court orders parties to appear for the hearing.

TENTATIVE RULING #20: PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR THE HEARING.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share