Change of Custody; Change of Venue
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 HILL M PASHALIDES,) Case Number: FDI-20-793829) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 14, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 JEFFREY T PASHALIDES,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY, REITERATE EXISTING CUSTODY 13 ORDERS; SEE NO. 7; MOTION (FAMILY LAW GENERIC) CHANGE OF VENUE. 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A.
Procedural History 18 1) Hill Pashalides (Mother) and Jeffery Pashalides (Father) have two minor children, Jason (DOB 19 3/29/2009, age 17) and Taylor “Pallas” (DOB 3/5/2012, age 14). Mother lives in Marin County 20 and Father lives in Sacramento. 21 2) On 2/1/2024, the Court issued a Statement of Decision (SOD) after a long-cause hearing on 22 custody and parenting time. This order provides for, in relevant part, joint legal and joint physical 23 custody with parenting time for Father on the 1stt, 3rd, and 4th weekends of each month. 24 3) On 2/13/2025, Mother filed a request seeking modification of the custody and parenting time 25 order.
Father opposed the request, stating there was no change in circumstances warranting 26 modification. The parties agreed at mediation to modify the Summer 2025 schedule. After a 27 hearing on 7/3/2025, Judge Anne Costin granted in part and denied in part Mother’s request, 28 confirmed the order set forth in the SOD for the parties to attend co-parenting counseling, and 29
1 ordered that neither parent shall suggest or discuss potential travel or events with the children that 2 fall outside of their own respective custodial time. 3 4) Now on for hearing is Father’s 3/6/2026 request seeking the following: (1) reiterate the existing 4 orders on custody schedule changes and attending co-parenting counseling, as Mother repeatedly 5 has violated orders on these matters; (2) enter as an order Father’s proposed written policy 6 documents (see Exhs. A & B); (3) order Mother to reimburse Father for his attorney fees in 7 bringing this request; (4) order Mother to pay $5,000 in sanctions for each of the five times (see 8 Exh.
C) he believes she has willingly violated this Cout’s orders, or a sum of $25,000; and (5) 9 provide Mother notice that a future sanction of $10,000 per violation will be imposed. Father 10 states that Palls (the younger child) attempted suicide after Mother’s most recent violation of 11 involving the children in unilaterally changing the custody schedule. Father states that Mother has 12 also violated the order for the parties to attend co-parenting counseling. 13 5) Also on for hearing is Mother’s 4/16/2026 motion to change venue to Marin County.
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?”
Mother 14 states both the children have gone through significant challenges, and that timeshare changes 15 might result due to their preferences and other factors such as outpatient programs, college, and 16 summer school. Mother states, based on the current situation, changing venue 17 to the Marin Superior Court would reduce fees and stress and allow her to focus on the 18 children. Mother has filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of her motion. She 19 asserts, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 397(c) and 397.5, “the convenience of witnesses 20 and the ends of justice would be promoted” by the change in venue to Marin County.
Mother 21 states the crucial “third-party percipient witnesses” are “teachers, experts, Pallas’s crisis care, 22 inpatient/outpatient treatment and healthcare providers, Jason’s ADHD coach, therapist and 23 college counselor, as well as the teenage children” in Marin County. 24 6) On 6/24/2026, Mother filed a response to Father’s request in which she opposes his requests and 25 disagrees with the statements he has made about co-parenting counseling and other matters. She 26 states that co-parenting counseling is not necessary because she and Father have been able to 27 effectively share custody.
Mother states that Father does not carry the same burden she does in 28 caring for the children, as he is a “weekend and summer parent.” According to Mother, Father has 29 been punitive when the children’s choices “challenge his control”; she states Father should
1 foresee that the 2024 and 2025 Court orders were made when the “children were younger, 2 not high school students.” 3 7) On 6/30/2026, Father filed a response to Mother’s motion to change venue. He states he does not 4 oppose the motion but would like his 3/6/2026 request to be adjudicated by this Court before the 5 case is transferred. 6 8) On 7/7/2026, Mother filed a reply stating there would be confusion and conflict if this Court were 7 to issue orders before the case is transferred. Mother asks the Court to deny Father’s request for 8 co-parenting counseling, as Father’s goal appears to be “only to use the platform to criticize [her], 9 not for parenting or to make decisions.” 10 9) On 7/7/2026, Father filed a reply stating Mother lacks authority to modify Court orders, 11 especially the orders mandating co-parent counseling and the parents' collaboration in custody 12 schedule changes. 13 B.
Findings and Orders 14 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform 15 Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party 16 in violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 17 children is the United States. 18 2) The Court hereby grants Mother’s motion to change venue to Marin County. Mother shall open a 19 case in Marin County as soon as possible. Mother shall be solely responsible for any and all fees 20 for opening a new case in Marin County and for any fees to transfer the case file to Marin 21 County.
A review hearing is set for Tuesday, 9/29/2026 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404 for the sole 22 purpose of determining Mother’s compliance with these orders. At least 10 calendar days prior to 23 the next hearing date, Mother shall file and serve a declaration explaining whether she was able to 24 transfer this case to Marin County and she shall attach documentary proof of her statements. 25 3) The Court finds it is in the children’s best interests to maintain all current orders pending the 26 transfer.
The parties are reminded that there are current orders in place, including orders for co- 27 parenting counseling and other conduct orders, which they must follow until and unless they 28 obtain a different order from the Court. 29
1 4) Father’s requests for sanctions and other conduct orders are denied without prejudice to the filing 2 of such requests in Marin County once the venue transfer is complete. 3 5) Mother’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 4 6) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 5 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 6 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 7 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 8 proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing within 9 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 10 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 11
15
19
23
27
29