Michelle Ramirez v. Frank S Lemus

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

5) 6 MICHELLE RAMIREZ,) Case Number: FDV-25-818357) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 12, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 FRANK S LEMUS,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 OTHER REVIEW HEARING 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) Petitioner Michelle Ramirez (Mother) and Respondent Frank Lemus (Father) have two minor 18 children, Eva (DOB 12/25/10, age 15) and Frank (DOB 8/12/2012, age 13). 19 2) On 6/25/2025, the Court denied Mother’s request for a domestic violence restraining order 20 against Father.

On 7/31/2025, the Court ordered as week-on, week-off parenting time schedule 21 for the parties and set a review hearing for 11/18/2025. 22 3) On 11/18/2025, the Court maintained the week-on, week-off schedule, with exchanges on Friday 23 after school or at 5pm at UCSF Benioff if school is not in session. The Court issued various other 24 orders, including a right of first refusal order and an order that the parenting time schedule may 25 be modified only by mutual written agreement of the parties, with 30 days’ notice or as soon as 26 possible in the case of an emergency.

The Court also ordered a Tier II interview of Eva and 27 ordered Mother to work with Family Court Services to set up a time for Eva to be interviewed 28 regarding her preferences as to time with each parent. The Court set a review hearing for 29

1 5/12/2026 and ordered the parties to file and serve update declarations at least 10 days before that 2 date. 3 4) On 5/4/2026, Father filed an update declaration stating that Mother “continues to unilaterally 4 modify the parenting time schedule" and “frequently leaves the children in [his] care during her 5 custodial time based on her own convenience, rather than following the Court’s orders.” He states 6 Mother does not provide the children with adequate clothing, which requires the children to 7 “transport belongings back and forth between homes in luggage.”

He states Mother is also not 8 complying with the orders regarding exchange location; she frequently brings the children to 9 Father’s home, unannounced. Father does not object to spending additional time with the 10 children, but he believes that Mother’s ongoing failure to comply with orders negatively affects 11 the children's stability and wellbeing. He asks the Court to continue the prior orders and order any 12 additional relief as appropriate. 13 5) Mother has not filed an update declaration as of the date of the tentative ruling. 14 B.