Amanda Tessandori v. Eric Tessandori

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 August 13, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

11. AMANDA TESSANDORI V. ERIC TESSANDORI PFL20200407

On May 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking an order for Respondent to undergo a vocational evaluation, an order regarding travel expenses, and arrears. She filed her Income and Expense Declaration concurrently therewith. All required documents were personally served on July 19th in accordance with Family Code § 215.

Petitioner filed and served her updated Income and Expense Declaration on July 27. th

Respondent filed and served his Responsive Declaration to Request for Order and his Income and Expense Declaration on July 30th. Respondent filed a supplemental declaration on July 31st. It was served the same day.

Petitioner filed her reply declaration on August 6th, it was served on August 1st.

Petitioner is requesting an order for Respondent to pay half of the travel expenses associated with the minors’ travel to California. She further asks the court to determine arrears owed for Respondent’s half of the uninsured medical expenses for the minors and an order to pay those expenses forthwith. Finally, she requests an order for Respondent to undergo a vocational evaluation with Patrick Sullivan.

Respondent opposes all of the requested orders. He asks that if he is required to undergo a vocational evaluation then Petitioner should be required to do the same. He argues that he should not have to pay for the uninsured medical expenses because the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) requires the requesting party to provide an Explanation of Benefits (EOB) in order to request reimbursement. Respondent further requests reimbursement of the following: (1) his travel costs to Texas; (2) the costs of enrolling the children in summer camp; (3) the costs associated with Respondent’s travel to transport the children back from Texas for Christmas of 2025. He also asks that he be credited for an overpayment of support and asks for that be offset from any amount he may owe Petitioner.

Petitioner’s request to amend the court’s prior order for travel costs is denied. Petitioner is the parent who chose to move away. For that reason, the burden of paying the costs for the children to travel back to California for their visits rests with Petitioner. The court is maintaining all prior orders regarding payment of costs for visitation.

Petitioner’s request for a vocational evaluation is granted. Respondent is ordered to undergo a vocational evaluation with Patrick Sullivan. The evaluation shall be completed at

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 August 13, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

Petitioner’s cost, subject to reallocation. Respondent’s request for a vocational evaluation of Petitioner is denied as Respondent has not provided the court with the name or credentials of a qualified evaluator.

Regarding each party’s reimbursement requests, the court is in need of evidence for each party to prove their respective requests. The parties are ordered to appear to select dates for an evidentiary hearing on these issues.

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 #11: PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COURT’S PRIOR ORDER FOR TRAVEL COSTS IS DENIED. THE COURT IS MAINTAINING ALL PRIOR ORDERS REGARDING PAYMENT OF COSTS FOR VISITATION.

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A VOCATIONAL EVALUATION IS GRANTED. RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO UNDERGO A VOCATIONAL EVALUATION WITH PATRICK SULLIVAN. THE EVALUATION SHALL BE COMPLETED AT PETITIONER’S COST, SUBJECT TO REALLOCATION. RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR A VOCATIONAL EVALUATION OF PETITIONER IS DENIED.

REGARDING EACH PARTY’S REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTS, THE COURT IS IN NEED OF EVIDENCE FOR EACH PARTY TO PROVE THEIR RESPECTIVE REQUESTS. THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR TO SELECT DATES FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THESE ISSUES.

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

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 August 13, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.