PATRICK ADAM GROCHMAL V. YEKATERINA LVOVNA REYZIS

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 September 10, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

4. PATRICK ADAM GROCHMAL V. YEKATERINA LVOVNA REYZIS 24FL1248

On June 24, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody and visitation orders. All required documents were served on July 9th.

The parties attended Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) on July 30, 2026 and reached agreements on some issues. A report containing those agreements and recommendations was prepared and mailed to the parties on August 11, 2026.

Respondent filed and served her Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on August 28th.

Petitioner is requesting joint legal custody and equal parenting time utilizing a 2-2-3 schedule. He also requests a holiday schedule and an order allowing the parties to take vacations with the children.

Respondent opposes the request for 50/50 custody and instead asks that Petitioner be ordered to undergo a Family Code § 3111 evaluation, at Respondent’s expense, with either Deborah Barnes or Mikayla Van Dine, whichever is available earliest. She asks that the court maintain the status quo pending completion of the evaluation. Alternatively, she asks that the court institute a step-up plan and set a review hearing in 90 days. She further requests orders regarding the right of first refusal, exchanges, treatment recommendations, and communication via Talking Parents.

After reviewing the filings as outlined above, the court finds the agreements and recommendations contained in the August 11, 2026 CCRC report to be in the best interests of the minors and they are hereby adopted as the orders of the court. Respondent’s request for a Section 3111 evaluation is denied without prejudice as the court does not find that such an evaluation would be in the best interests of the children at this time.

In addition to the foregoing, the court is ordering all communications regarding the children to be made utilizing the Talking Parents app.

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 #4: THE COURT FINDS THE AGREEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE AUGUST 11, 2026 CCRC REPORT TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINORS AND THEY ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AS THE

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 September 10, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE COURT. RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR A SECTION 3111 EVALUATION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS THE COURT DOES NOT FIND THAT SUCH AN EVALUATION WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN AT THIS TIME.

IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING, THE COURT IS ORDERING ALL COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THE CHILDREN TO BE MADE UTILIZING THE TALKING PARENTS APP.

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