Staggs, Adriana Elizabeth , filed a(n) Divorce,Separation - Family case against Staggs, Kc Paul , in the jurisdiction of Kern County. This case was filed in Kern County Superior Courts Superior Court of California with Marquez, Raymonda B. presiding.
Marquez, Raymonda B.
Dissolution Of Marriage With Minor Children
Superior Court of California
Staggs, Adriana Elizabeth
Azemika, Nicholas P (Attorney)
Parties ordered to appear at Mediation Conference.
Request for Order - Petitioner
Parties ordered to appear at Mediation Conference.
Request for Order - Petitioner
Judge: Marquez, Raymonda B.
Oct 30, 2015 | McKnight, Ralph L., Jr. | Child Support-Department of Child Support Services | BDA-15-002206
DATE: 08/30/24 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: D CASE NO: FL0000241 PRESIDING: HON. BETH S. JORDAN REPORTER: CLERK: STACY BOND PETITIONER: STEPHANIE FAVALORO- ELLIOT and RESPONDENT: SIMON JOHN ELLIOT NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER — CUSTODY/CHILD SUPPORT/VISITATION; SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT; OTHER: VARIOUS INC. REQUEST FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS RULING This matter is set for hearing on (1) Respondent/Father’s 7/11/24 Request for Orders (“RFO”) re child custody/visitation regarding the parties’ daughter, Ella (DOB 5/8/08); (2) modification of the 5/7/24 Order re: child support; (3) for an emergency order that Wife pay community debts immediately and for distribution of proceeds from the house sale. The parties were interviewed separately by Family Court Services (“FCS”), and Ella was also interviewed. Father seeks joint legal custody of Ella. Father fled to Chile in August 2023 and has not returned or had contact with Ella since then. He stated that he left because Ella had called the police on him twice “for no reason,” and the police told him if they had to come to the house again, they would arrest Father. Father states that he has had no contact with Ella since he left for Chile a year ago. He then stated it was Mother’s allegations against him that caused him to flee the US. Although he’s tried to send Ella photos, she has only responded to him to ask for money. Father does note that he did not send Christmas or 16" birthday cards to Ella because he did not have an address for her. According to Mother, Ella does not want communication with Father, and has blocked him from her devices. Ella stated that Father was drinking excessively and became physically and mentally abusive to her and to Mother. Ella is in therapy and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of repeated exposure to serious domestic violence. Her recounting of Father’s behaviors is quite disturbing and more than a child should experience. FL0000241 Based on the pleadings filed by the parties, the history of Father’s domestic violence, and the FCS Report & Recommendations, the Court finds that it is clearly in the best interests of Ella to adopt the FCS recommendations, as modified below: 1 Sole legal and physical custody to Mother. 2 Ella shall not be mandated to have contact with Father against her wishes. This includes face-to-face contact, phone or video calls, texts, emails, etc. Ella may initiate contact with Father whenever she wishes. Father shall enroll in and complete a 52-week certified batterers’ treatment course for perpetrators of domestic violence. Father shall seek professional help to address his history of alcohol abuse. Reunification therapy between Father and Ella shall not be considered until Father completes a 52-week certified batterers’ treatment course and has addressed his history of alcohol abuse by seeking professional treatment. Mother shall participate in counseling for victims of domestic violence. Ella shall not be shown the contents of this report. Therefore, Father’s RFO re: custody/visitation is denied. Child Support Father argues that he has told opposing counsel a number of times that the “calculations are incorrect, miscalculated and flawed.” The issue of child support was heard by this Court on 5/13/24. Petitioner appeared with her attorney of record, Ashley Rodet, Esq., and Respondent/ Father appeared, representing himself, remotely via zoom on that date. Oral argument was had on the Court’s tentative ruling, and the Court adopted its tentative ruling as the final Order on this matter. Father’s request that the Court now reconsider the issue of child support is without support in either fact or law. There has been no change of circumstances since the Court issued its Order; therefore, Father’s request to modify child support (including the inclusion of add-on expenses) is denied. Distribution of House Proceeds Held in Trust Distribution of the entire house proceeds at this time is premature given the unresolved characterization of the home; however, considering the circumstances and the agreement of the parties as to some disbursements, the Court orders the following distributions be made from the house proceeds forthwith: Page 2 of 4 FL0000241 1 Family Code § 2030 requires the Court ensure that both parties have equal access to legal representation. Up until now, Father has not asked for legal fees; however, he is equally entitled to access to funds for legal representation; therefore, $15,000 shall be paid to Father from the funds in counsel’s IOLTA account, to be used by Father only for his legal fees and costs. Said $15,000 shall be charged against his share of the community property. Given Mother’s stated agreement in her 8/19/24 Responsive Declaration, the Court further authorizes payment from the funds in counsel’s IOLTA account to pay the following forthwith: a, $13,033.40 payable to Barclaycard; b $10,784.45 payable to American Express;* $906.79 payable to Premier Finance, only upon proof that a balance is owing; $10,000.00 shall be advanced to Mother for attorneys’ fees; the Court reserves the ultimate allocation of such fees; $15,186.00 payable to Mother for unpaid support for the period June 1 — August 31,2024 ($5,062/month x 3), to be charged against Father’s share of funds held in trust. SO ORDERED. TEMPORARILY, under current orders, litigants who require the assistance of a Spanish language interpreter shall appear in person. Interpreter services via video technology are currently not available. Any party contesting the ruling and requesting oral argument shall appear in person or remotely through Zoom either by video or telephone. Please follow the guidelines set forth on the court website at www.marin.courts.ca.go' The Zoom appearance information is as follows: August 2024 at 09:00 AM Join Zoom Meeting Zoom link for Courtroom D Family Law 161 0592888 passcode 841800 Meeting ID: 161 059 2888 Passcode: 841800 If you are only able to appear by phone you may dial the phone number below, follow the prompts and enter the meeting ID and passcode. Page 3 of 4 FL0000241 +1-669-254-5252 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 161 059 2888 Passcode: 841800 If a party and/or counsel elects to appear over Zoom they must follow proper Zoom etiquette. This includes joining the call five minutes early, speaking only one at a time, avoiding disruptions, and wearing proper attire appropriate for a court environment. Parties must act and speak in a professional and respectful manner as though they are in an actual courtroom. If a party or counsel is unable to follow proper Zoom etiquette, the court may halt the hearing and order the parties to return in person. Page 4 of 4 SS
Case Number: 24STCP01877 Hearing Date: August 30, 2024 Dept: 86 NO APPEARANCE IS NECESSARY. The petition will be granted. A copy of the signed decree will be available in Room 112 of the Clerk's Office seven days after the date of the hearing.
IN RE: SHAW Case Number: 24CV-0205009 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Lori Denise Heston, aka Laurrie Denise Rosel aka Laurrie Denise Shaw seeks to change her name to Laurrie Denise Shaw. No proof of publication has been submitted. The Court requires a Certificate of Publication from the publishing newspaper before the Petition may be granted. If the Certificate of Publication is provided, the Court intends to grant the Petition, vacate all future dates, and close the file.
21FL45368 SOCHACKI DUNN The Petitioner and Respondent are both directed v DUNN to file and serve their Preliminary Declarations of Disclosure prior the next Case Management Conference scheduled for February 19, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 4.
FL-23-002209 – ROBLEDO V. MENDOZA Petitioner Evelyn Robledo’s Request for an Order re: Appraisal Fees and Business Control —DENIED. While the Court might have the discretion to consider the request, Petitioner provides no legal authority in support of the Court making the orders requested. If Respondent chooses to hire his own appraiser (and compensate the appraiser himself) that is his choice. While it would be more efficient for the parties to agree on an appraiser, Petitioner provides no authority indicating the Court must force Respondent to agree on an appraiser. If Respondent chooses not to cooperate with Petitioner as she learns how to operate the community business – again that is his choice and Petitioner provides no legal authority in support of her request.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPT026932: IN THE MATTER OF NOAH TOMAS BAUTISTA 08/27/2024 in Department 21 OSC - Name Change In the Matter of Bautista 2024CUPT026932 August 27, 2024 Dept. 21 Motion: Petition for name change (minor—DOB 2/4/10). By: Both parents. From/To: Noah Tomas Bautista/Diego Andres Bautista. Reason: Parents changed their mind after their son was born. They have been calling him Diego Andres since then. Discussion: Petitioners and the minor reside in this county. (¶ 1a). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1276, subd. (a)). Both parents signed the petition. Proof of publication was filed on 8/14/24. The declaration does not comply with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5. It is not signed under penalty of perjury and does not either state it was signed in California or signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California. Petitioner Ashley Bautista filed a “Notice of Remote Appearance” on 8/16/24 stating that she intended to appear by audio only. TENTATIVE RULING : Continue hearing for proof of publication that complies with Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5. n
FL-23-003059 - IRMO SCHEU Respondent’s RFO to Preserve Community Asset - HEARING REQUIRED Respondent Saleen Scheu’s Request for an Order re: preservation of community asset and attorneys’ fees and costs. While the Court might have the discretion to consider the request, Respondent provides no legal authority in support of the Court making the orders requested. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
21FL45526 ULREY v ULREY The matter is scheduled for a Default prove up hearing on September 17, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 2. The next Case Management Conference is set for February 19, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 4.