DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-25-801424·sf·FamilyLaw·Child Custody and Visitation
Hearing in about 3 hoursGranted in part and denied in part

Zhenia Medina Gutierrez v. Martin Joel Quiroz Ibanez

Request for Order of Child Custody, Visitation, Vehicle as Community Property

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
403
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PetitionerZhenia Medina Gutierrez
RespondentMartin Joel Quiroz Ibanez

Ruling

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

5) 6 ZHENIA MEDINA GUTIERREZ,) Case Number: FDI-25-801424) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: September 1, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 MARTIN JOEL QUIROZ IBANEZ,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER OF CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME), VEHICLE AS 13 COMMUNITY PROPERTY 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A.

Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner Zhenia Medina Gutierrez (Mother) and Respondent Martin Joel Quiroz 19 Ibanez (Father). They share one minor child: Bruno J. Quiroz Medina (DOB: 12/07/16). 20 2) On April 20, 2026, Father filed a Request for Order seeking initial child custody and visitation 21 orders. Father requests joint legal custody and for Mother to have physical custody. As to 22 visitation, Father requests parenting time every weekend from Friday at 7:00 p.m. through 23 Sunday at 7:00 p.m.

Father also asks the Court deny Mother’s request that the 2016 Toyota 24 Corolla be considered community property. 25 3) On June 22, 2026, Readiness hearing was conducted, and the matter was referred to FCS 26 Mediation to occur on July 22, 2026, and the matter was set for return hearing on August 11, 27 2026. 28

1 4) On August 11, 2026, the matter was continued as Mother did not provide Father and the Court 2 with notice of her objections to the Court’s tentative ruling. The Court did not adopt its tentative 3 ruling and continued the matter to September 1, 2026. 4 B. Findings and Order 5 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 6 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 7 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both.

The country of habitual residence of the minor 8 child(ren) is the United States. 9 2) The Court DENIES without prejudice Respondent’s request to declare the 2016 Toyota Corolla a 10 separate property asset. This is an issue for trial. The Court will adjudicate this issue, at the time 11 of the final trial in this matter. 12 3) The parties shall share joint legal and joint physical custody of the minor child. 13 4) Father’s parenting time shall be on the 1st, 3rd and 5th weekends of each month from Friday after 14 school (if no school, 4:00 p.m.) through Monday morning drop of the child at school.

Father to 15 provide the transportation to and from his parenting time. 16 5) Father shall also have parenting time with the minor child every Wednesday from after school 17 until 7:30 p.m. Father shall provide the transportation to and from his parenting time. 18 6) Mother shall have care and custody of the minor child during all other times. 19 7) The parties shall meet and confer to develop a Holiday schedule for their parenting time. If they 20 are unable to do so, either of them may file a Request for Order seeking the Court’s assistance in 21 developing a Holiday schedule. 22 8) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 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