Marguerite Bacon Bradley v. Jorge Vargas Gonzalez

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

5) 6 MARGUERITE BACON BRADLEY,) Case Number: FDV-25-818369) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 30, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 JORGE VARGAS GONZALEZ,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER OF PETITIONER BRADLEYS REQUEST FOR ORDER FL300 CHANGE 13 OF VISITATION (PARENTING TIME), ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, CHANGE RALLY 14 LOCATION & ORDER FATHER TO COOPERATE WITH SERVICE 15 TENTATIVE RULING 16 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 17 Court makes the following findings and orders: 18 A.

Procedural History 19 1) The parties are Petitioner, Marguerite Bacon Bradley (Mother) and Respondent, Jorge Vargas 20 Gonzalez (Father). They share one minor child named Luisa Vargas Bradley (DOB: 05/24/24). 21 2) On March 30, 2026, Mother filed a Request for Order seeking a modification to the parenting 22 time schedule, change of Rally location, and an order for Father to cooperate with service, and 23 attorney fees. Mother also asked the Court for an order that electronic service be permitted. 24 3) On April 3, 2026, Mother filed a declaration in support of her Request for Order, which has been 25 read and considered by the Court. 26 4) On April 21, 2026, Father filed a Responsive Declaration to Mother’s Request for Order, which 27 has been read and considered by the Court. 28

1 5) On April 28, 2026, Mother filed a “Reply Declaration of Petitioner Marguerite Bacon Bradley to 2 Respondent Jorge Vargas Gonzalez’s Responsive Declaration to Petitioner’s RFO,” which has 3 been read and considered by this Court. 4 6) On May 4, 2026, the Court held a “Readiness” hearing and granted Mother’s request to transfer 5 the supervised exchange from San Francisco Rally to San Mateo Rally. The Court did not 6 address any of the other issues contained within Mother’s March 30, 2026, Request for Order, 7 pending further hearing.

The Court ordered both parents to attend FCS Mediation on June 12, 8 2026, and continued the matter for hearing on June 30, 2026. 9 7) On June 23, 2026, Father filed a “Supplemental Responsive Declaration in Opposition to 10 Petitioner’s Request for Orders,” which has been read and considered by the Court. 11 B. Findings and Order 12 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 13 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 14 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both.

The country of habitual residence of the minor 15 child(ren) is the United States. 16 2) From review of the pleadings, it appears Mother has relocated the minor child to San Mateo 17 County. The Court notes that even though Mother has sole legal and sole physical custody, she 18 cannot unilaterally relocate the minor child, without Father’s permission or an order of the Court. 19 Given that Father’s Responsive Declaration did not raise any objection to Mother’s relocation of 20 the minor child, the Court will assume Father has given Mother consent to relocate with the 21 minor child to San Mateo County and will not disturb the parties’ agreement. 22 3) Mother’s request for a change in the Rally supervised exchange from San Francisco County to 23 San Mateo County is DENIED.