DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-22-797070·sf·FamilyLaw·Child Custody
Hearing 4 months agoDENIED

AMANDA LORRAINE FULFORD v. DAVID ERNESTO SALGUERO

REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY; REQUEST FOR ORDER: TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, ENFORCE LAWFUL IDEA PROCEDURES AND PARENTAL PARTICIPATION

Hearing date
Apr 23, 2026
Department
404
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerAmanda Lorraine Fulford
RespondentDavid Ernesto Salguero

Ruling

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

5) 6 AMANDA LORRAINE FULFORD,) Case Number: FDI-22-797070) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 23, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 DAVID ERNESTO SALGUERO,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY; REQUEST FOR ORDER: 13 TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, ENFORCE LAWFUL IDEA PROCEDURES AND 14 PARENTAL PARTICIPATION 15 TENTATIVE RULING 16 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 17 Court makes the following findings and orders: 18 A.

Procedural History 19 1) Petitioner Amanda Fulford (Mother) and David Ernesto Salguero (Father) have one minor child 20 together, Gabriel (DOB 11/30/2020, age 5). 21 2) On 1/30/2026, Father filed a request for an order for joint legal custody. On 2/3/2026, he filed an 22 ex parte request to "[e]nforce statutory parental participation requirements under IDEA and 23 temporarily pause further IDEA/IEP assessments or evaluations pending compliance and lawful 24 procedure." 25 3) Mother has filed responsive declarations opposing both requests.

She notes the Court issued a 26 Statement of Decision on 11/10/2025 granting her sole legal custody and that Father has not 27 shown that any modification of that order is appropriate. 28

1 B. Findings and Orders 2 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 3 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 4 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 5 child is the United States. 6 2) The Court finds it is in Gabriel's best interest to maintain the current order for sole legal custody 7 to Mother. Accordingly, Father's request for a change in legal custody is denied. Father's ex parte 8 request is also denied. 9 3) Father shall continue to have access to Gabriel's medical, dental, and school records. 10 4) All prior orders not in conflict with these orders shall remain in full force and effect. 11 5) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 12

16

20

24

28

29

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share