Request for emergency custody orders
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 11, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
13. QUINN CRAYTHORN V. DALTON CRAYTHORN 26FL0248
Petitioner filed a Petition for Custody and Support on March 17, 2026. A Summons was issued the same day. There is no Proof of Service showing Respondent has been properly served.
Petitioner filed an ex parte application for emergency custody orders on March 17, 2026. On March 20, 2026, the court granted the ex parte request, granting Petitioner temporary sole physical custody of the minors. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) with an appointment on April 17, 2026, and a review hearing on June 11, 2026. Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on March 20, 2026, making the same requests as set forth in the ex parte application. Proof of Service shows Respondent was served the required documents, except the Blank FL-320.
Both parties appeared at the CCRC appointment on April 17, 2026. They were unable to reach any agreements. A report with recommendations was filed with the court on May 13, 2026. Copies were mailed to the parties the same day. Respondent’s copy has been returned to the court as undeliverable.
Upon review of the court file, the court finds that it has not obtained jurisdiction over the parties, as the Petition and Summons have not been properly served. Therefore, the court vacates the ex parte orders. The court drops this matter from calendar due to the lack of proper service of the RFO.
All prior orders are vacated. 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 #13: THE COURT FINDS THAT IT HAS NOT OBTAINED JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES, AS THE PETITION AND SUMMONS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY SERVED. THEREFORE, THE COURT VACATES THE EX PARTE ORDERS. THE COURT DROPS THIS MATTER FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE LACK OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE RFO. ALL PRIOR ORDERS ARE VACATED. 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
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 11, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
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?”
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.