DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FL0000103·marin·FamilyLaw·Custody Review
Hearing 3 months agoAppearances required

Katherine Bruhn v. Nicolas Duffort

Review hearing - setting hearing date; timeshare review; travel; status of custody evaluation

Hearing date
May 29, 2026
Department
E
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerKatherine Bruhn
RespondentNicolas Duffort

Ruling

This matter is set for review/status conference. On 5/26/2026 Petitioner/Mother filed a Declaration and Respondent/Father filed a Status Conference Statement. The parties have reached a timeshare agreement for Lilou (DOB through the end of summer 2026. The parties have not reached agreement on where Lilou will start kindergarten for the 2026-2027 school year if the custody evaluation by Dr. Janelle Street is not completed before commencement of school, which appears likely. Nor have the parties reached agreement on a co-parent counselor.

Appearances required.

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.

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