Request for Order (RFO) for decision making authority
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 4, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
17. CHALLYN WILLIAMS V. MARK WILLIAMS PFL20210389
On January 7, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking final decision making authority on the minor’s school as well as medical decisions regarding vaccinations. This followed a denied ex parte application making the same requests. Respondent was personally served on January 8, 2026.
Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration on February 26, 2026. It was mail served on Petitioner on the same day. Respondent is opposed to the request.
Petitioner filed another ex parte application on March 10th. The court authorized Petitioner to make legal decisions regarding the minor’s need to extract a tooth only. On March 11, 2026, Petitioner filed an RFO, requesting legal decision making regarding treatment for the minor. Proof of Service shows it was served on March 13th.
On March 12, 2026, the court adopted its tentative ruling referring the parties to CCRC with an appointment on April 6, 2026 and a review hearing on June 4, 2026.
Petitioner again filed an RFO on March 20th in conjunction with an ex parte request. Once again this request was denied. The RFO was not set for a hearing.
Petitioner filed two Declarations on March 20th. They were served on March 22nd.
Both parties attended Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) on April 6, 2026. The parties were able to reach agreements. A report with the parties’ agreements was filed with the court on April 8, 2026, and mail served on the parties the same day.
The court has read and considered the filings as outlined above. The court adopts the parties’ agreements as set forth in the April 8th CCRC report. Additionally, the court is ordering the parties to participate in co-parenting counseling. Parties may return to Colleen Underwood, who was their prior counselor or, if she is unavailable, they may select a new counselor. Petitioner shall provide Respondent with the names of three potential coparenting counselors by no later than June 18th. Respondent shall select one of the three by no later than June 25th. Petitioner shall ensure that the proposed counselors are available and taking on new clients. Parties shall participate in co-parenting counseling at a frequency and duration as recommended by the counselor.
All prior orders remain in full force and effect. Petitioner is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH); however, this order is effective immediately
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?”
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 4, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.
TENTATIVE RULING #17: THE COURT ADOPTS THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE APRIL 8TH CCRC REPORT. ADDITIONALLY, THE COURT IS ORDERING THE PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN CO-PARENTING COUNSELING. PARTIES MAY RETURN TO COLLEEN UNDERWOOD, WHO WAS THEIR PRIOR COUNSELOR OR, IF SHE IS UNAVAILABLE, THEY MAY SELECT A NEW COUNSELOR. PETITIONER SHALL PROVIDE RESPONDENT WITH THE NAMES OF THREE POTENTIAL CO-PARENTING COUNSELORS BY NO LATER THAN JUNE 18TH. RESPONDENT SHALL SELECT ONE OF THE THREE BY NO LATER THAN JUNE 25TH. PETITIONER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED COUNSELORS ARE AVAILABLE AND TAKING ON NEW CLIENTS. PARTIES SHALL PARTICIPATE IN CO-PARENTING COUNSELING AT A FREQUENCY AND DURATION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNSELOR.
ALL PRIOR ORDERS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. 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.