| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Petitioner’s Request for Order re: custody/visitation; Respondent’s Request to Modify custody and visitation, and re: family therapy
This matter was continued from 5/8/2026 at the request of the parties and is set for hearing on on (A) Petitioner/Mother’s 2/27/2026 Request for Order (“RFO”) re: custody/visitation regarding the parties’ son, Simon (DOB 1/5/2012); and (B) Respondent/ Father’s 3/13/2026 Request to Modify custody and visitation, and re: family therapy.
Mother requests that Father’s alcohol testing continue for another six months based on “irregularities” in his testing, which she states is not consistently done immediately before or after each visit with Simon. Mother noted 12 instances when testing was submitted late, early or omitted between 11/2025 and 2/2026. She also cites over 55 violations of the Court’s orders by Father, which the Court will not repeat. Mother states she does not believe Father is sober. In her 5/4/2026 Responsive Declaration to Father’s RFO, Mother asks the Court to deny Father’s request for 50/50 custody, joint legal custody, overnights and out-of-state travel.
Father requests he be granted joint legal and physical custody of both children. Since Neil turned 18 in March, he is considered an adult, and the Court can no longer make custody orders involving him. Father states that, since the incident which occurred in August 2025, as a result of which he lost custody of the boys, he has engaged in therapy, and he takes responsibility for his actions and believes he has made significant progress in understanding how his actions hurt his relationship with the children.
He states he no longer uses cannabis, engaged in a drug and alcohol use assessment and received a score in the none to low risk for abuse of drugs or alcohol, with no recommendations for treatment. The Court notes, however, that the assessment is based on a self-administered test, in which a number of Father’s answers raise an eyebrow, such as his “No” response to the question whether his drinking or other drug use caused problems between him and his family. Mother presents a very different history than does Father in this screening.
Father states he submitted to five drug tests at Mother’s request, all with negative results; and he has been submitting to blood alcohol testing before and after every visit with Simon, as ordered.
Father states there are over 70 examples with all negative results. He wants to engage in therapy with the boys to open communication and allow them to speak openly about the August 2025 incident and their feelings about it. Father asks that his timeshare schedule prior to the August 2025 incident be restored.
The parties were referred to Family Court Services (“FCS”). Both parents and Simon were interviewed, and FCS filed its Report & Recommendations with the Court on 4/27/2026. Father filed a Statement of Agreement/Disagreement with the FCS Recommendations on 5/1/2026, and Mother filed a Statement of Agreement/Disagreement with the FCS Recommendations on 5/4/2026.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Having reviewed the history of this case, all of the written submissions by the parties, as well as the prior and current FCS Reports & Recommendations, the Court finds it is in the best interests of Simon to adopt the FCS Recommendations, as modified below and, therefore, orders as follows:
1. All prior orders not in conflict with the below shall remain in effect with the following modifications.
2. Father shall continue to submit to alcohol testing one hour prior to, once in the middle of his parenting time, and at the conclusion of his parenting time. Father shall test with Soberlink, with real-time results to be provided to Mother. Father shall continue to alcohol test through a further review hearing on 9/4/2026.
a. Father is admonished that a significantly untimely or omitted test shall be treated by the Court as a positive test.
b. Father shall provide all testing results to Family Court Services, as well as to the Court, for the next review hearing.
3. Father shall not consume or be under the influence of either alcohol or marijuana 24 hours prior to or during his custody time with Simon.
4. Parental Timeshare:
a. Until the end of the school year, Father shall have unsupervised day visits with Simon each Sunday from 9 AM to 8 PM and each Wednesday from after school through 7 PM.
b. Commencing Summer 2026, Father shall have unsupervised parenting time each Sunday from 9 AM through Monday 9 AM and each Wednesday from 9 AM through Thursday 9 AM. When Father has overnights with Simon, he shall test one hour prior to the beginning of his custody time, at 2 p.m., at 9 pm, and at 7 or 8 AM the following day.
c. It is anticipated, assuming at the next review hearing the Court finds Father’s testing results are satisfactory, his parenting time shall be increased to each Sunday from 9
AM through Tuesday morning drop off at school and each Wednesday from after school through Thursday morning drop off at school.
d. Simon shall be in Mother’s custody at all other times when not in Father’s custody.
e. Simon shall be given some degree of flexibility in the custody schedule once he enters high school.
5. The existing orders for Father not to have contact with Simon are terminated. Father may attend school events including Simon’s eighth grade graduation and any other important school events.
6. It is anticipated, assuming at the next review hearing the Court finds Father’s testing results are satisfactory, the Court will reinstate the previous vacation schedule that allows each parent to have up to 14 days of vacation a year with Simon.
7. The previous holiday schedule shall be reinstated so that Simon may spend holidays with both parents.
8. Assuming the Court is satisfied with Father’s testing results, at the next review hearing, the Court anticipates restoring joint legal custody.
9. Pending the restoration of joint legal custody, Father’s name shall be restored to Simon’s medical records. Father shall be permitted to participate in Simon’s educational assessment and shall have access to any and all information pertaining to Simon’s medical and educational care/services and records.
10. If Father still wishes to have an evidentiary hearing, he must notify Mother and the Court of his intent to appear for oral argument, and both parties must appear.
SO ORDERED.
Counsel for Mother shall prepare the order.
Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is selfrepresented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Court website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.