| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
OTHER REVIEW HEARING
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 NATIYA SURIYA NAMESNY,) Case Number: FDI-23-797463) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 19, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 MARKUS JAN NAMESNY,) 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 Natiya Suriya Namesny (Mother) and Markus Jan Namesny (Father) have one minor 18 child together, Charlotte (Charlie) (DOB 9/16/2019, age 6).
Pursuant to the terms of a Marital 19 Settlement Agreement of 12/29/2023, the parties have joint legal and joint physical custody of 20 Charlie. 21 2) At a 4/28/2026 parenting time hearing, the Court issued various orders and set a review hearing 22 for 5/19/2026 to address the summer schedule, specifically vacation and international travel. 23 3) On 5/11/2026, both parties filed update declarations. Father states he would like the parties to 24 continue the regular parenting time schedule during the summer, with each party to have two, 25 one-week vacations with Charlie, from Sunday to Sunday.
He sets forth a proposed process for 26 the parties to select their vacation dates as well as a proposal for the parties to provide each other 27 with travel itineraries for all travel. He seeks an order prohibiting the parties from obtaining non- 28 USA citizenship or a passport for Charlie without written consent of the other party. He expresses 29 concern about Mother traveling internationally with Charlie this year, noting that Mother recently
1 told him, “ ‘If you are forcing six days on me, I’m not going to be able to live in California!’ ” 2 which Father interpreted as an indication that Mother would leave the state if the current schedule 3 remained in place. 4 4) Mother states in her declaration that she has no plans of leaving California, which is her home, 5 and that there is no risk that she will not return if permitted to travel to Thailand with Charlie. She 6 seeks a 14-day consecutive trip for each party during the summer and states that without 14 7 consecutive days, she would not be able to take Charlie to Thailand, where the maternal relatives 8 live.
She states the maternal grandparents do not have the means to travel to the United States to 9 see Charlie, nor is there any space for them to stay in Mother’s home even if they were able to 10 come to California. Mother also requests “clarification” of the Court’s prior order, which states 11 that she has parenting time for 4 overnights, followed by Father’s parenting time of 6 overnights. 12 She states that Father’s parenting time is actually 6 days and 7 overnights. 13 B. Findings and Orders 14 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 15 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
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?”
A violation of this order may subject the party in 16 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 17 child is the United States. 18 2) The Court finds it is in the best interest of Charlie to maintain joint legal custody to the parties 19 and the current parenting time schedule that was put in place at the 4/28/2026 hearing, as 20 memorialized in the Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) filed 5/4/2026. If Father’s 21 custodial time is actually 6 days and 7 overnights as opposed to 6 overnights (i.e., if it is 7 22 overnights because his first of 7 nights occurs on the night that starts at the 7pm custody 23 exchange), the parties shall submit a proposed amended FOAH to this Court.
Otherwise, the 24 5/4/2026 FOAH shall remain in place. 25 3) The parties shall continue to follow the regular parenting time schedule during the summer. In 26 addition, each party shall be entitled to two, one-week vacations with Charlie during the summer, 27 with Father selecting his vacation weeks first, by January 31, in odd years, and Mother seelcting 28 her vacation weeks second, by March 15, in odd years. In even years, Mother shall select her 29
1 vacation weeks first, by January 31, and Father shall select his vacation weeks second, by March 2 15. 3 4) For all travel with Charlie, each party shall provide the other party, at least 15 days before the 4 first travel date (unless the parties agree in writing to a shorter notice period), travel information, 5 i.e., basic itinerary, any flight information, confirmation of a return flight if traveling by air, 6 addresses of all accommodations, and contact information for the duration of the trip. 7 5) Neither party may travel internationally without the written consent of the other party.
Requests 8 for international travel shall be made at least 60 days prior to any travel unless the parties agree 9 otherwise in writing to a shorter period. Mother's requests to travel with Charlie to Thailand this 10 year, and for the parties to have 14-day consecutive vacations with Charlie over the summer 11 break, are denied, without prejudice to the Court revisiting these requests in future years. 12 6) All other orders not in conflict with these orders shall remain in full force and effect. 13 7) Mother’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 14 8) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 15 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 16 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 17 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 18 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.
Failure to submit the order after hearing within 19 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 20 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 21
25
29