DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-18-789439·sf·FamilyLaw·Child Support Modification
Hearing todayDENIED

Michael Breck Long II v. Choi San Wong

Request for Order re: Change of Child Support

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
404
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,747

Parties

PetitionerMichael Breck Long II
RespondentChoi San Wong

Ruling

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

5) 6 MICHAEL BRECK LONG II,) Case Number: FDI-18-789439) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 20, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHOI SAN WONG,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: CHANGE OF CHILD SUPPORT 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) Petitioner Michael Breck Long II (Father) and Respondent Choi San Wong (Mother) have one 18 minor child, Corban (DOB: 11/11/2010, age 15).

The parties married on 4/24/2010 and separated 19 on 7/1/2015, for a marriage of 5 years and 2 months. 20 2) On 4/5/2019, a Dissolution Judgment was entered. The Judgment provides in relevant part that 21 Mother will pay 100% of the cost of all extracurricular activities, childcare, lessons, school 22 supplies, camps, and sports. 23 3) On 12/10/2020, a Stipulation to Establish or Modify Child Support and Order was entered which 24 provides in relevant part that Father will pay Mother $1,747 per month in guideline child support; 25 the parties will share equally uninsured healthcare expenses for the child; and “all other child 26 support provisions in the Judgment entered April 3, 2019 remain in full force and effect.” 27 4) Now on for hearing is Father’s Request for Order filed 1/28/2026 asking the Court to modify the 28 current child support order because Father was laid off on 12/5/2025 and because Father is now 29

1 the “primary financial supporter of two additional dependent children born after the existing order 2 who reside with me full time.” 3 5) On 1/28/2026, Father filed an Income and Expense Declaration wherein Father states he is 4 unemployed and is receiving unemployment compensation.

5 6) At the prior 4/10/2026 hearing, neither party appeared. The Court adopted its Tentative Ruling 6 which continued the hearing to 6/18/2026 because there was no Proof of Service on file for 7 Father’s 1/28/2026 Request for Order. Father was ordered to file an updated Income and Expense 8 Declaration no later than 5/15/2026. Father was also ordered to serve the following documents on 9 Mother in advance of the 6/18/2026 hearing: (a) Request for Order filed 1/28/2026, (b) Income 10 and Expense Declaration filed 1/28/2026, (c) Father’s updated Income and Expense Declaration, 11 (d) blank Responsive Declaration, (e) blank Income and Expense Declaration, Tentative Ruling 12 Instructions, and (f) Findings and Order After Hearing for the 4/10/2026 hearing date.

13 7) On 4/29/2026, the Court prepared and filed the Findings and Order After Hearing memorializing 14 the orders for the 4/10/2026 hearing date. The Court mailed the Findings and Order After Hearing 15 to Father that same day. The Court not mail the Findings and Order After Hearing to Mother 16 because there is no address on file for Mother. 17 8) On 5/14/2026, Father filed an updated Income and Expense Declaration wherein Father states he 18 remains unemployed and is receiving unemployment compensation. 19 9) On 5/14/2026, Father filed a Proof of Service which indicates that Mother was personally served 20 with the following documents on 3/21/2026: (a) Request for Order, (b) Income and Expense

21 Declaration (no file date provided), (c) Blank Responsive Declaration, (d) Blank Income and 22 Expense Declaration, and (e) Notice of Remote Appearance. 23 10) At the prior 6/18/2026 hearing, neither party appeared. The Court adopted its Tentative Ruling 24 which continued the hearing “a second and final time” to 8/20/2026 because there was no 25 evidence in the record that Mother had been served with a copy of the Findings and Order After 26 Hearing for the 4/10/2026 hearing date. The Court ordered Father to file and serve an updated 27 Income and Expense Declaration no later than 7/20/2026 and to serve and file Proof of Service 28 indicating service of: (a) Father’s Updated Income and Expense Declaration, (b) Findings and 29

1 Order After Hearing for the 4/10/2026 hearing date, (c) Findings and Order After Hearing for the 2 6/18/2026 hearing date, and (d) Tentative Ruling Instructions. 3 11) On 6/29/2026, the Court prepared and filed the Findings and Order After Hearing memorializing 4 the orders for the 6/18/2026 hearing date. The Court mailed the Findings and Order After Hearing

5 to Father that same day. The Court not mail the Findings and Order After Hearing to Mother 6 because there is no address on file for Mother. 7 12) Father has filed no pleadings since he filed the 5/14/2026 Proof of Service. 8 13) To date, no pleadings have been filed by Mother regarding Father’s 1/28/2026. 9 B. Findings and Order 10 1) Father has not complied with prior orders requiring him to serve the Findings and Orders After 11 Hearing for the 4/10/2026 and 6/18/2026 hearing dates or the Tentative Ruling Instructions. 12 Additionally, Father did not file an updated Income and Expense Declaration by 7/20/2026.

13 2) Father’s 1/28/2026 Request for Order is denied without prejudice to a new Request for Order. 14 3) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 15

19

23

27

29

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