Liza Quyen Rivas v. Jimmy A Rivas

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 LIZA QUYEN RIVAS,) Case Number: FDI-22-796285) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 18, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 JIMMY A RIVAS,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: CINDEE MAYFIELD) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF REQUEST FOR ORDER: CHANGE OF CHILD 13 CUSTODY, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME) 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15

16 The parties shall appear on June 18, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in person or via Zoom in Dept. 404 to 17 address the issues raised in Mother’s RFO to modify custody and visitation. If a party chooses to 18 appear by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearance in 19 San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 20

21 A. Procedural History 22 1) Liza Quyen Rivas (Mother) and Jimmy A. Rivas (Father) are the married parents of Aurora 23 Rivas, age 8 (DOB 7/14/2017) and Jimmy Kai Rivas, age 5 (DOB 8/22/2-2020). 24 2) On June 29, 2022, the parents stipulated that, pending further proceedings, the children would be 25 in their joint physical and joint legal custody. They agreed that Aurora would spend each 26 weekend with Father from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. Father’s parenting time 27 with Jimmy was to be arranged by mutual agreement. The parents further agreed to alternate time 28 with the children on Thanksgiving, Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve. 29

1 3) On March 25, 2025, Mother filed a Request For Order (RFO) to modify custody and visitation. 2 Mother alleged that the parties had not been following the stipulated parenting plan for 3 approximately two years. She declared that Father had missed many visits with Aurora, and that 4 on prior visits during the summer of 2025, Father appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. 5 Mother further declared that Father asked her to drive to Pittsburg to drop the children off for 6 visits, stating that it is not worth his time to drive to San Francisco.

Finally, Mother alleged that 7 when Father attempted to telephone or videocall the children between visits, the children often do 8 not want to speak with him. 9 4) Mother requested that the children be placed in her sole legal and sole physical custody. She 10 asked that Father’s parenting time be modified to Sundays from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in San 11 Francisco. Mother expressed the hope that if Father were required to drive into San Francisco to 12 see the children that he would remain sober. 13 5) Father did not file a written Response to Mother’s RFO. 14 B.

Findings and Order 15 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 16 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 17 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 18 children is the United States. 19 2) The parties shall appear on June 18, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in person or via Zoom in Dept. 404 to 20 address the issues raised in Mother’s RFO to modify custody and visitation. 21