DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV-0211024·shasta·Civil·Probate
Hearing in 2 daysCONTINUED

In re: Petrick

Petition for Change of Name

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
64
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 19, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerKierra Lee Petrick

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0211024 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Kierra Lee Petrick seeks to change her last name to Love. She also seeks to change her two minor children’s last name from Petrick to Love. Proof of publication has been filed.

However, the Petition is brought by only one parent. The father is not identified in the Petition. Petitioner must file an Amended Petition identifying the father. Additionally, when a petition to change the name of a minor is brought by one parent only, the nonconsenting parent must be personally served with the notice of hearing or order to show cause at least 30 days before the hearing date. See CCP § 1277(a)(4).

In the alternative to personal service, the Court may order notice be given in another manner the Court determines is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the non-consenting parent. CCP § 1277(a)(4). No proof of service is on file. The Court has reviewed the Petitioner’s declaration which states she could not locate the father when she was going through divorce court in 2024/2025. The Court will require Petitioner to make new efforts to locate and serve the father 11

notice of this Petition. Petitioner must file proof of service, or a declaration which sufficiently details new efforts to locate and serve the father, at least five days before the future court date.

This matter is continued to October 19, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64 to permit service on the father. Petitioner shall file an Amended Order to Show Cause (“Amended OSC”) for the continued hearing date. The Amended OSC must be personally served on the father at least 30 days before the continued hearing date. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

IN RE: RUIZ

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