Puneet Singh v. Zoe Deane

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

5) 6 PUNEET SINGH,) Case Number: FDI-19-791672) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: September 3, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ZOE DEANE,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION 13 (PARENTING TIME) CHANGE COMMNUNICATION AND CONDUCT ORDERS 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 Puneet Singh (Father) and Respondent Zoe Deane (Mother). There is 19 one minor child subject to this proceeding: Ari Singh (DOB: 12/05/17). 20 2) On March 5, 2026, Father filed a Request for Order seeking a modification of child custody and 21 visitation (i.e., parenting time) orders. However, his requests seem to be directed towards 22 communication and conduct. He is specifically seeking the following orders: 23 a. That Father shall have final decision-making authority with regard to travel and medical 24 issues; 25 b.

Modification of the parenting plan such that Father has Wednesdays and Thursdays and 26 Mother has Mondays and Tuesdays; 27 c. That each parent send no more than one non-urgent email communication per week, to be 28 sent on Fridays; 29 d. That each parent respond by Monday end of day, absent emergency circumstances;

1 e. That each parent copy the other parent on communications with third parties concerning 2 significant matters affecting Ari, including medical providers, schools, counselors, 3 mediators, Family Court Services, unless impracticable due to emergency circumstances, 4 and shall promptly forward any written communication received concerning such matter 5 if the other parent was not included; 6 f. That neither parent shall appear at the other parent’s residence without prior agreement 7 except in emergencies; 8 g.

That routine custodial transitions shall occur curbside, promptly, and with Ari 9 transitioning directly between households without unnecessary lingering, discussion, or 10 overlap between the parties absent mutual agreement otherwise; 11 h. That neither parent shall speak negatively about the other parent to Ari or in any manner 12 reasonably likely to reach Ari; and 13 i. That neither parent shall attend social events or extracurricular activites occurring during 14 the other parent’s custodial time without prior written agreement, except for school-wide 15 public events where both parents may attend without interference. 16 3) On July 10, 2026, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration in which she asks this Court to deny 17 Father’s requests. 18 4) On July 27, 2026, the parties appeared at Readiness hearing and the Court referred the parties to 19 FCS Mediation to occur on August 25, 2026, and set the matter for formal hearing on September 20 3, 2026. 21 5) On August 24, 2026, Father filed a Reply declaration, which has been read and considered by the 22 Court. 23 B.

Findings and Order 24 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Unform Child 25 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 26 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 27 child is the United States. 28 2) Father’s request to modify the existing parenting plan is GRANTED. However, the Court will 29 not grant his specific request. Given the allegations raised by both parents, the Court will order

1 the new parenting plan on a week on/week off basis. Exchanges shall occur every Sunday at 6:00 2 p.m. Receiving parent shall pick up the minor child from the other parent’s home. Mother’s first 3 week will commence on Sunday, September 6, 2026. Father’s week will then commence the 4 following Sunday, September 13, 2026. They shall rotate each week thereafter. 5 3) The Court DENIES Father’s request to modify the existing Holiday schedule. Any existing 6 orders related to Holidays and breaks shall supersede the week on/week off schedule. 7 4) In all other respects, Father’s additional requests are all DENIED.

They are not in the child’s best 8 interest and frankly seem extremely controlling and coercive. Should Father continue to make 9 such unreasonable requests, the Court will consider such requests as not in the child’s best 10 interest. He and Mother shall work together in making decisions for the benefit of the minor 11 child. If they are unable to work together, the Court will consider ordering them to participate in 12 “in person, joint, co-parent counseling” for up to 15 sessions. These issues are clearly about the 13 parents’ lack of ability to communicate and work together, which is not in their child’s best- 14 interest. 15 5) All existing orders, not in conflict with the orders made herein, shall remain in full force and 16 effect. 17 6) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 18

22

26

29