Petitioner/Mother’s 3/13/2026 Request for Order (RFO) to modify custody/visitation (relocation)
This matter is set for hearing on Petitioner/Mother’s 3/13/2026 Request for Order (“RFO”) to modify custody/visitation regarding the parties’ son, Bodhi (DOB7/22/2017). Mother wishes to relocate to Puerto Rico with Bodhi to join her partner. The parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement filed 3/16/2022 provides the parties share joint legal and physical custody. Mother requests she be given sole legal custody, with reasonable visitation to Father. With her RFO, Mother filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
On 5/12/2026 Father filed a Responsive Declaration in which he opposes Bodhi’s relocation. Father moved to Southern California in 2024. He requests that the Court deny the relocation and that he be granted sole legal and physical custody of Bodhi with reasonable visitation to Mother. Father contends he has consistently maintained an active and meaningful relationship with Bodhi, making strong efforts to be involved in his daily life, emotional development, activities, and education. He states that Mother has not been cooperative in co-parenting, which has negatively impacted his ability to fully participate in Bodhi’s life. Father emphasizes that Bodhi has lived his entire life in Marin County, and moving to Puerto Rico will create emotional stress and instability for Bodhi.
On 5/15/2026 Mother filed a Reply Declaration in which she contests Father’s claims of involvement in Bodhi’s life, and states that Father had dinner with Bodhi on 5/22/2026 after Father attended a horse show in Sonoma, but prior to that had not seen Bodhi during the prior 8 months.
The parties were referred to Family Court Services (“FCS”), and a mediation session was scheduled remotely via Zoom for both parties on 4/28/2026 at 12 pm. Father failed to participate in the mediation session or otherwise contact FCS. FCS filed its Report & Recommendation with the Court on 5/13/2026. That FCS recommendations are as follows:
Parental Responsibilities
1. The parents shall share joint legal custody of Bodhi. The parents shall share in the responsibility and confer in good faith on matters concerning the child’s health, education and welfare. Both parents shall have access to the child’s school, medical, mental health, and dental records and the right to consult with professionals who are providing services to the child.
2. Mother shall have sole physical custody of Bodhi.
Timeshare Schedule
3. Bodhi shall live primarily with Mother in Puerto Rico and shall be with Father during the following times:
• In California: one week every summer and one week every Christmas break.
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?”
• In Puerto Rico: any time Father can travel to Puerto Rico provided that he gives Mother at least 3 weeks’ notice, he provides her with the address where Bodhi is staying, and Bodhi does not miss school.
• Any additional time and locations as agreed upon by the parents.
4. In addition to visits, Bodhi shall have Facetime calls with Father two times each week at a regularly scheduled time agreed upon by the parents.
Collateral Issues
5. Father shall cooperate with all paperwork necessary to enroll Bodhi in the school chosen by Cydney in Puerto Rico.
6. Mother shall ensure that Father has the address of where Bodhi is living.
7. Neither parent shall make any disparaging comments about the other parent in the presence of Bodhi or allow others to do so.
8. Bodhi shall be exposed to peaceful contact only between his parents and any other adults.
The Court is in agreement with FCS that Mother has been Bodhi’s de facto primary custodial parent; and as such, she has a presumptive right to relocate with Bodhi, unless it would prejudice the rights or welfare of Bodhi. (Family Code §7501; In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Ca.4th 25, 32, 51; Marriage of La Musga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072, 1094.)
Father has stated in his Responsive Declaration that he wants to have an evidentiary hearing, to which he is entitled. Therefore, the Court orders as follows:
1. Appearances are required to set an evidentiary hearing.
SO ORDERED.
Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is selfrepresented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Court website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.