Jose Adalid Pineda Moreno v. Sandra Ester Galdamez Figueroa

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

5) 6 JOSE ADALID PINEDA MORENO,) Case Number: FDI-26-802770) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 14, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 SANDRA ESTER GALDAMEZ FIGUEROA,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER OF CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME) 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) Petitioner Jose Adalid Pineda Moreno (Father) and Respondent Sandra Ester Galdamez Figueroa 18 (Mother) have one minor child, Edward (DOB 2/6/2018, age 8). 19 2) On for hearing is Father’s 4/8/2026 request seeking joint legal and physical custody, with a week- 20 on, week-off parenting time schedule. 21 3) On 5/8/2026, Mother filed a response in which she seeks: (1) sole legal custody and primary 22 physical custody with visitation to Father on Fridays after school through Sundays at 4PM; (2) 23 right of first refusal so Mother gets the option to care for Edward if Father is unable to do so for 3 24 hours or more during his custody time; and (3) that the Court order Father to keep Edward in 25 extracurriculars during his custodial time.

Regarding legal custody, Mother states that Father 26 never participated in Edward’s school conferences, extracurriculars, or medical 27 appointments. Mother states that for 6 years since their separation, the parties have followed the 28 same schedule of Mondays through Fridays to Mother and Fridays to Sundays to Father. She also 29 states that Edward has been living with her daughter Jennifer (age 15) since 2020, and they

1 have a strong bond; therefore, changing parenting time is not in Edward’s best interests. Mother 2 states her concern that Edward often stays with “strangers” when in Father’s care, and that Father 3 does not tell Mother who these people are. 4 B. Findings and Orders 5 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform 6 Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party 7 in violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both.

The country of habitual residence of the minor 8 child is the United States. 9 2) The Court finds it is in Edward’s best interests for the parties to have joint legal and physical 10 custody, with parenting time for Father from Fridays after school to Sundays at 4PM. In addition, 11 Father shall have parenting time on one weekday afternoon/evening from after school to 7PM 12 drop off at Mother’s home, curbside. The parties shall agree, in writing, to the day of the week the 13 additional parenting time will occur.