| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Request for Order for change of child custody, visitation, changes to parenting plan
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 CHASEN PAUL DAVID GONZALES,) Case Number: FPT-24-378337) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 21, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHIPONGOLO MULENGA,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME), 13 CHANGES TO PARENTING PLAN 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) Petitioner Chasen Paul David Gonzales (Father) and Chipongolo Mulenga (Mother) have one 19 minor child together, Ethan (DOB 7/22/2023, age 2). Father lives in San Francisco; Mother lives 20 in Walnut Creek. On 12/4/2024, a 4-year Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) was 21 issued against Father, protecting Mother, and the parties agreed this triggered the presumption 22 against custody for Father under Family Code section 3044 (the 3044 presumption). 23 2) In a Findings and Order After Hearing filed 10/10/2025, the Court found Father had met his 24 burden of overcoming the 3044 presumption but found it was in Ethan's best interest for Mother 25 to retain sole legal and sole physical custody of Ethan.
The Court expressed concern about the 26 parties' troubled relationship and poor communication and stated that "if in the future if Father is 27 able to show the Court that his focus remains on building a positive co-parenting relationship, the 28 Court will consider a renewed motion for joint custody." The Court stated that it would like "the 29 parties to focus on ensuring their respective time with Ethan is quality time as opposed to
1 returning to litigation." The Court ordered the parties to continue working with a coparent 2 counselor to improve their communications. The Court ordered a parenting time schedule for 3 Father from Thursday to Friday during Week A and Thursday to Sunday during Week B, which 4 equates to a 29% timeshare for Father. 5 3) On 1/16/2026, Father filed a request for joint legal custody and a structured, two-phase transition 6 into a 2-2-5-5 parenting time schedule, as well as a comprehensive a holiday schedule, with a 7 review hearing to take place in 6 months.
He describes ongoing coparenting challenges; for 8 example, he states that Mother has not kept him apprised of Ethan's health and welfare and has 9 failed to follow the order requiring her to provide him with information of individuals conducting 10 custody exchanges. He states he wishes to enroll Ethan in a preschool in San Francisco during his 11 custodial days. 12 4) On 4/8/2026, Mother filed a response. She notes that Father requested an additional custodial day 13 and began discussing his goal of 50/50 custody just 13 days after the last hearing; she states it 14 appears 50/50 custody is Father's focus, rather than communicating to her about how Ethan is 15 doing with the new schedule or while in his care.
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 notes that Ethan resists going to Father 16 during exchanges while he readily comes to her care and that issues with Ethan's behavior 17 increased when Father's parenting time increased. (She attaches to her declaration notes from the 18 daycare expressing concern about Ethan's behavior.) She states that Ethan is thriving in her care 19 and has a regular routine and schedule that includes daycare, speech therapy, and time with 20 Mother that he has become accustomed to since the last hearing.
Mother states she has been 21 present at all custody exchanges but has another individual do the exchange because of the 22 DVRO. She asks that she not be required to provide information for every individual who may be 23 there to assist her on any given day, so long as she is also personally present at the exchange. She 24 sets forth a proposed holiday schedule and asks for a Right of First Refusal because she has 25 reason to believe Father is not spending his parenting time with Ethan. She also asks for a change 26 in the custody exchange location due to parking and other issues. 27 5) On 4/14/2026, Father filed a reply in which he disputes some of Mother's statements and states 28 that a Right of First Refusal is unnecessary and not workable.
He states he would like to maintain 29 the current custody exchange location, Wow Kids, which he believes is a positive place for Ethan
1 and allows him to play at Wow Kids before exchanges. Father agrees with some parts of Mother's 2 proposed holiday schedule and also asks for a summer schedule, including an order permitting 3 him to take Ethan to Maryland in July. 4 B. Findings and Orders 5 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 6 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 7 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 Ethan's best interest to maintain the current custody and parenting time 10 schedule to which he is in the process of adjusting. The Court notes that Father filed his request 11 just three months after the prior order in which the Court increased his parenting time and 12 instructed the parties to focus on their time with Ethan and improving their coparenting skills 13 instead of returning to litigation.
The parties' declarations do not reflect sufficient improvement in 14 the parties' communication or ability to coparent or make joint decisions to justify a modification 15 at this time. 16 3) The parties shall keep each other informed of any significant developments relating to Ethan's 17 health, education, and welfare. 18 4) The Court orders the following holiday schedule: Mother's Day and Father's Day - each parent 19 will have their respective day; Thanksgiving, defined as Thanksgiving Thursday at 9am to the 20 next day, Friday, at 9am - Mother in even-numbered years and Father in odd-numbered years; 21 Christmas, defined as 9am on December 24 to 9am on December 26 - Father in even-numbered 22 years and Mother in odd-numbered years.
The parties shall meet and confer regarding all other 23 holidays, including a summer schedule and Father's request to travel out of state with Ethan. 24 5) The Court denies Mother's request for a Right of First Refusal and change in exchange location. 25 6) If Mother is present at the custody exchange, she is not required to provide Father with 26 information regarding the individual(s) who will assist her with the exchange. 27 7) All orders not in conflict with these orders shall remain in full force and effect. 28 8) Mother’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 29
1 9) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within
2 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 3 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 4 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 5 proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing within 6 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 7 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 8
12
16
20
24
28
29