Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody and visitation orders; Expand the scope of the 3111 evaluation
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 23, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
1. FLETCHER C. ALFORD V. SHARI COVINGTON 25FL0047
On February 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody and visitation orders. All required documents were served on February 9, 2026.
Because the RFO was originally filed ex parte, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on February 5, 2026.
On April 17th, Petitioner filed a Declaration of Fletcher C. Alford, a Declaration of Attorney, and a Notice of Intent to Present Oral Testimony. The court finds Petitioner’s declaration and that of his attorney to be late filed pursuant to Civil Procedure section 1005(b) which states all reply papers are to be filed at least five court days before the hearing date. Section 12c states, “[w]here any law requires an act to be performed no later than a specified number of days before a hearing date, the last day to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing as provided by Section 12.” Cal. Civ. Pro. § 12c. Section 1005(b) in conjunction with Section 12c would have made April 16th the last day for filing and service of a reply declaration therefore these documents are late and have not been considered.
A Declaration of Shari Covington was filed on April 21st. There is no Proof of Service for this document. Instead, there is a Proof of Service for a document identified as “Respondent’s Reply to Petitioner’s late filed declaration.” It is unclear if this is the same document. Given the defect in service, and the untimeliness of this document, the court has not read or considered it.
In addition to the pending ex parte, this matter is before the court for receipt and review of the 3111 report. After reviewing the court’s file, it appears the 3111 report has not been completed or filed with the court.
Petitioner is requesting sole legal and sole physical custody of the minors. He asks that Respondent only have visits with the minors as agreed upon by the parties. He further asks that the court order the custody evaluator to expand the scope of his evaluation to include Respondent’s recent unexpected health event and an order for Respondent to provide Petitioner and the custody evaluator any medical information reasonably necessary to understand the nature, diagnosis, prognosis and impact of Respondent’s recent hospitalization.
Respondent asks that the current custody orders remain in place but she does not object to review of the issue through the existing 3111 evaluation.
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 April 23, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
The request to expand the scope of the 3111 evaluation is granted. Respondent is ordered to provide Petitioner, Petitioner’s counsel, and the custody evaluator any medical information which is reasonably requested by the evaluator to understand the nature, diagnosis, and impact of Respondent’s recent hospitalization on her ability to safely and effectively parent the children. All prior orders regarding custody and visitation remain in full force and effect pending the completion of the 3111 evaluation.
Given that the parties are set for trial in August on the issues of custody, the court is not setting a further review hearing for receipt and review of the 3111 report.
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 #1: THE REQUEST TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE 3111 EVALUATION IS GRANTED. RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO PROVIDE PETITIONER, PETITIONER’S COUNSEL, AND THE CUSTODY EVALUATOR ANY MEDICAL INFORMATION WHICH IS REASONABLY REQUESTED BY THE EVALUATOR TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE, DIAGNOSIS, AND IMPACT OF RESPONDENT’S RECENT HOSPITALIZATION ON HER ABILITY TO SAFELY AND EFFECTIVELY PARENT THE CHILDREN. ALL PRIOR ORDERS REGARDING CUSTODY AND VISITATION REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT PENDING THE COMPLETION OF THE 3111 EVALUATION.
GIVEN THAT THE PARTIES ARE SET FOR TRIAL IN AUGUST ON THE ISSUES OF CUSTODY, THE COURT IS NOT SETTING A FURTHER REVIEW HEARING FOR RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF THE 3111 REPORT.
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
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 23, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.