Fei Xiao v. Dexiong Zhao

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

5) 6 FEI XIAO,) Case Number: FDV-25-818802) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 21, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 DEXIONG ZHAO,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 NOTICE OF HEARING (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE) 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) The parties in this matter are Petitioner Dexiong Zhao (Mother) and Respondent Fei Xiao 18 (Father).

They share one minor child: Yucheng Xiao (DOB: 11/07/24). 19 2) On December 8, 2025, Mother filed a Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) 20 asking for various orders, including of child custody and visitation orders. Within Mother’s 21 request for a DVRO, she indicates that “I intend to return to the United States with our 22 daughter....” She further states in her declaration: “I have no intention of staying in China long- 23 term.” 24 3) On January 28, 2026, the Court heard Mother’s request for DVRO, which was denied as and the 25 Court did not find a sufficient basis for granting a DVRO.

The Court ordered that Mother and 26 Father shall share joint legal and physical custody of the minor child. The Court also ordered 27 Mother to return the child to the United States. Mother asserted, for the first time, that California 28 did not have Jurisdiction over child custody issues. The Court continued the matter until February 29

1 17, 2026 and ordered both parents to serve and file additional declarations regarding the time 2 period when their child was present in the United States. 3 4) On February 2, 2026, Father filed a declaration stating he did not consent to the child remaining 4 in China and confirmed that the child was only to be in China on a temporary basis. 5 5) At the prior February 17, 2026 hearing, the parties met and conferred and reached a stipulated 6 agreement, which did not resolve the issues before the Court.

In particular, the parties agreed as 7 follows: 8 a. The Court vacates the order to return the minor child, Yucheng Xiao to California. 9 b. The hearing regarding jurisdiction shall be continued for 60 days to April 21, 2026, at 10 9:00 a.m., in Department 403. 11 c. The parties shall meet and confer regarding Respondent/Father’s visitation schedule. 12 d. The parties do not agree over the issue of California Court’s jurisdiction. 13 e. 10 days before the next hearing, Petitioner/Mother shall file with the Court a declaration 14 and a memorandum of points and authorities on her position opposing California Court’s 15 jurisdiction over the minor child, Yucheng Xiao. 16 f.