| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME), ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD'S RIGHT TO PARENTAL COMMUNICATION
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 DANIELLE SCHMID-MAYBACH,) Case Number: FDI-22-796538) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 30, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ULRICH SCHMID-MAYBACH,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, VISITATION 13 (PARENTING TIME), ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD'S RIGHT TO PARENTAL COMMUNICATION 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) The parties are Petitioner Danielle Schmid-Maybach (Mother) and Respondent Ulrich Schmid- 19 Maybach (Father). There is one minor child subject to this proceeding: Grace Schmid-Maybach 20 (DOB: 11/05/21). 21 2) On December 15, 2025, Mother filed an emergency Request for Order seeking visitation orders 22 and “enforcement of child’s right to parental communication.” Mother requested communication 23 with minor child during a ten-day vacation period from December 15, 2025 – December 25, 24 2025. 25 3) On January 26, 2026, the Court continued the matter to March 2, 2026 because the Request for 26 Order had not been served on Father by Mother. 27 4) On March 2, 2026, the matter was continued to April 30, 2026 to permit the parties additional 28 time enter into an agreement. 29 5) On March 4, 2026, Mother filed a declaration, which has been read and considered by the Court.
1 6) On April 6, 2026, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order for appointment of a parenting 2 coordinator. 3 B. Findings and Order 4 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 5 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 6 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 7 child is the United States. 8 2) The Court finds the issues raised in Mother’s Request for Order filed December 15, 2025 are 9 better suited for submission to and resolution by the parent coordinator. Accordingly, Mother’s 10 request is DENIED without prejudice. 11 3) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 12
16
20
24
28
29
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?”