DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
21FL0051·eldorado·Civil·Child Custody and Visitation
Hearing todayParties referred to CCRC.

JUDY MARCUM V. ZACHARY NUGENT

Request for Order (RFO)

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Dec 17, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJudy Marcum
RespondentZachary Nugent

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 August 20, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

12. JUDY MARCUM V. ZACHARY NUGENT 21FL0051

Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) on June 2, 2026, seeking modification of the current visitation orders. Petitioner was electronically served on June 13, 2026.

Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration on July 22, 2026. Petitioner was served on July 22nd.

The court notes the parties have not participated in Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) in the last year. Respondent failed to appear at the CCRC appointment when it was set earlier this year, despite it being set at his request. The court finds good cause to refer the parties to CCRC. Parties are to attend CCRC on Friday, October 30th at 1:00 pm and return for a review hearing on Thursday, December 17th at 1:30 pm in Department 5. If either party fails to appear at the CCRC appointment, the court may issue sanctions against the party. Any Supplemental Declarations are due at least 10 days prior to the review hearing date. Pending the review hearing, all prior orders remain in full force and effect.

Respondent 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 #12: THE COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE TO REFER THE PARTIES TO CCRC. PARTIES ARE TO ATTEND CCRC ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30TH AT 1:00 PM AND RETURN FOR A REVIEW HEARING ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17TH AT 1:30 PM IN DEPARTMENT 5. IF EITHER PARTY FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE CCRC APPOINTMENT, THE COURT MAY ISSUE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PARTY. ANY SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS ARE DUE AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE REVIEW HEARING DATE. PENDING THE REVIEW HEARING, ALL PRIOR ORDERS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

RESPONDENT 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

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 August 20, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

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