| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Request for custody orders and sanctions
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
9. ASHLEY MILLS V. COLE MILLS PFL20200476
On November 9, 2025, Petitioner filed an ex parte application for custody orders. The request was denied on an ex parte basis but set for trial on the regular law and motion calendar. She filed another ex parte on December 3, 2025, and she followed that by filing a Request for Order (RFO) renewing her ex parte requests.
Respondent filed and served his Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on March 24, 2026.
The parties attended Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) on December 15, 2025. They were unable to reach any agreements therefore a report with recommendations was prepared and mailed to the parties on March 27th.
Petitioner filed a Supplemental Declaration on March 30th, the court deems this to be a Reply Declaration.
Petitioner is requesting sole legal and sole physical custody. She asks that Respondent have only supervised visits with the minor children. She further asks that Respondent be ordered to use SoberLink testing during his parenting time and an ignition interlock device while driving.
Respondent opposes the requests and asks that Petitioner be sanctioned $2,500 pursuant to Family Code § 271.
After reviewing the filings as outlined above, the court does find the recommendations contained in the CCRC report to be in the best interests of the minors. They are hereby adopted as the orders of the court. Respondent is admonished that failure to abide by these orders may result in the court modifying its custody orders in the future.
“Section 271 provides that a family court may impose an award of attorney fees and costs ‘in the nature of a sanction’ where the conduct of a party or attorney ‘frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys.’ (§ 271, subd. (a).)” (In re Marriage of Tharp (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1316.) “Expressed another way, section 271 vests family law courts with an additional means with which to enforce this state’s public policy of promoting settlement of family law litigation, while reducing its costs through mutual cooperation of clients and their counsel.” (Id. at 1318.) The court denies Respondent’s request for sanctions. The court finds Petitioner’s actions do not fall
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?”
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
within the prohibited behaviors as contemplated by Family Code section 271. The court finds Petitioner’s motions were brought in good faith.
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 #9: AFTER REVIEWING THE FILINGS AS OUTLINED ABOVE, THE COURT DOES FIND THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE CCRC REPORT TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINORS. THEY ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AS THE ORDERS OF THE COURT. RESPONDENT IS ADMONISHED THAT FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THESE ORDERS MAY RESULT IN THE COURT MODIFYING ITS CUSTODY ORDERS IN THE FUTURE. RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR FAMILY CODE SECTION 271 SANCTIONS IS DENIED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE.
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 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.