DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FL-21-000003·stanislaus·FamilyLaw·Petition for Custody and Support
Hearing 3 months agoHEARING REQUIRED

GARDEA VS GARDEA

Third-Party's Motion re Joinder, etc.

Hearing date
May 27, 2026
Department
11
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffGARDEA
DefendantGARDEA

Ruling

Stanislaus County - FamilyLaw - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/family-law-t entative-rulings Family Law Tentative Rulings

The family court issues tentative ruling announcements on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing for specific types of motions. Tentative rulings are only provided on the Internet and posted in the clerk's office lobby. Internet postings occur at 3:30 p.m. daily. Parties are not required to give notice of intent to appear to preserve the right to a hearing. The tentative ruling will not become final until the hearing. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1)

However, as a courtesy to the Court, and other parties or counsel with matters on calendar, notice of intended appearance or non-appearance is encouraged and may be sent by e-mail to the following address: familylaw.tentatives@stanct.org between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. If you do not receive a confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you may call to speak directly with a Calendar Clerk at 209-530-3107.

Any party filing pleadings or documents on a tentative ruling matter within five (5) days of the hearing should provide a courtesy copy to the Courtroom Clerk and the Court's Family Law Research Attorney by placing a copy in the drop box slot on the door of Room 223, Second Floor of the main Courthouse. Failure to do so may prevent the Court from consideration of such, may result in a continuance, and/or may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(B).)

All parties and counsel are required to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute on any request, motion or hearing, with the exception of those involving domestic violence, and to exchange any documents upon which reliance will be made at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98; Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(C).) Failure to do so may result in a continuance and may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs, or both. If sufficient information regarding an adequate pre-hearing meet and confer effort is not provided in the moving and opposing papers, in the Court's discretion, the matter may be placed at the end of the calendar and not called until the parties or counsel advise the Court that they have complied with their obligations and/or resolved the matter s own motion, the Court orders Respondent to comply within thirty (30) days of this ruling and admonishes Respondent that the failure to do so may result in the striking of the Response and entry of Respondent's default.

Date: May 27, 2026

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:

FL-21-000003 - GARDEA VS GARDEA Third-Party's Motion re Joinder, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

This is a Petition for Custody and Support involving three minor children in which the parties are married but there is no dissolution action pending. Pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing of February 22, 2021, Petitioner was accorded sole legal and physical custody of the minor children and that order has not been modified or altered since.

Accordingly, given Petitioner's objection to court-ordered grandparent visitation, the Court may not order joinder or consider court-ordered grandparent visitation over Petitioner's objection unless and until Third-Party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that doing so is in the minor children's best interests. (Fam. Code Sec. 3104(a)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(1)(B); Local Rules, rule 7.08(B)(2); In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 222; Rich v. Thatcher (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1181 [clear and convincing evidence burden essential to constitutionality of statutory grandparent visitation over fit custodial parents' objections]; Ian J. v.

Peter M. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 189, 205-209 [trial court abused discretion in failing to apply clear and convincing evidence standard and to consider "the breadth of circumstances a parent may reasonably consider in deciding to limit or prevent contact with a grandparent"].)

That said, if Petitioner appears and is willing to entertain some visitation with Third-Party, then the Court may, in its discretion, direct the parties to mediation and, if an agreement is reached, then joinder may be granted.

FL-23-000182 - WILLIAMSON VS WILLIAMSON

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