DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26FL0127·eldorado·Civil·Child Custody and Visitation
Hearing about 1 month agoGRANTED

MARIO RODRIGUEZ V. BRITTNEY SORIANO

Request for Order

Hearing date
Jul 16, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
Petitioner
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerMARIO RODRIGUEZ
RespondentBRITTNEY SORIANO

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 16, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

6. MARIO RODRIGUEZ V. BRITTNEY SORIANO 26FL0127

On February 11, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody and visitation orders. It was personally served on March 18th along with all other required documents.

Respondent filed her Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on April 13th. It was served on April 8th.

Only Petitioner attended Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) on March 16, 2026. As such, a single parent report was prepared without recommendations. It was sent to the parties on May 4, 2026.

Petitioner filed and served a reply declaration and a supplemental declaration on May 7. th

Given that Respondent missed the initial CCRC appointment, the parties were rereferred and both of them attended the reset appointment on May 20th. They were able to reach several agreements but could not agree on all issues therefore a report with the agreements and recommendations was prepared on May 20, 2026. It was mailed to the parties on May 22nd.

Petitioner is requesting joint legal and joint physical custody of the minor.

Respondent states that she is not looking to restrict Petitioner’s time with the minor but she asserts several requests which she argues are necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the minor.

After reviewing the filings as outlined above, the court finds the agreements and recommendations contained in the May 20, 2026 CCRC report to be in the best interests of the minor and they are hereby adopted as the orders of the court.

Petitioner 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.

TENTATIVE RULING #6: THE COURT FINDS THE AGREEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE MAY 20, 2026 CCRC REPORT TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINOR AND THEY ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AS THE ORDERS OF THE COURT.

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 16, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

PETITIONER 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.

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