Request for Order for change of visitation
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 YESENIA MOZ CASTRO,) Case Number: FDV-23-816763) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 4, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 JUAN CARLOS MENENDEZ FUNES,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHANGE OF 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) Yesenia Moz Castro (Mother) and Juan Carlos Menendez (Father) have one minor child together, 18 Valerie (DOB 4/29/2021, age 5). 19 2) On 7/19/2023, this Court issued a 2-year Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against 20 Father protecting Mother.
The Court awarded sole legal and sole physical custody of Valerie to 21 3) Mother, with one hour of weekly parenting time for Father, supervised by the maternal 22 grandmother. The Court ordered that the grandmother may cancel the visit if she is not available 23 or if she believes Father is not sober. 24 4) On 2/11/2026, Father filed a request seeking parenting time every Saturday from 1PM to 5PM. 25 He stated he did not see Valerie after 2024 because Mother did not let him see her. He stated that 26 Mother recently asked him if he would agree to have her current husband adopt Valerie. 27 5) Mother filed a response stating Father saw Valerie only 3 or 4 times, spent only 10 to 30 minutes 28 with her each time, had not seen her since 2/24/2024, and had not called Valerie on her birthday 29 or other special occasions.
Mother stated she also assumed the parental role for Father’s daughter
1 Victoria for some time because Father was unable to care for her, had multiple DVROs against 2 him, and had lost custody of a son. 3 6) At a 4/30/2026 hearing on Father’s request, the Court ordered that Father shall have visits every 4 Saturday from 6:30PM to 7:30PM, supervised by the maternal grandmother at the grandmother’s 5 7) house or at another location approved by the grandmother. The Court set a review hearing for 6 7/14/2026, which was continued to 8/4/2026. 7 8) On 4/30/2026 (the same day as the last hearing), Mother filed a new request to suspend visits.
She 8 reiterates many of the statements she made in her original request. This request is set for hearing 9 on 8/4/2026. 10 9) On 7/9/2026, Father filed a declaration stating the visits have been going well and he wishes to 11 continue seeing Valerie. He attaches a May 2026 certificate for completion of a parenting class 12 from Kids' Turn. 13 10) The parties attended mediation on 7/15/2026 and were unable to reach an agreement. 14 B. Findings and Orders 15 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 16 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
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?”
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 child is the United States. 19 2) The Court finds it is in Valerie's best interest to maintain the current order. The parties shall 20 continue to follow all orders set forth in the 6/1/2026 Findings and Order After Hearing (from the 21 4/30/2026 hearing). 22 3) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 23
27
29