Marisol Bartolo v. Eduardo Vergara Juarez
Case No: 119FL01096
Hearing Date: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: DVRO

DVRO

CMC

Attorneys:

Elizabeth Diaz for Petitioner (“mother”)

Alan G. Karow for Respondent (“father”)

Ruling: It appears to the Court that the custody and visitation issues are resolved; but this is not a routine or simple case(s); the Petition for Dissolution was filed in 5/2019; there is no report on the status of any judgment on that matter; it is a marriage of 17 years with two minor children; a response was filed; there is a Domestic Violence “related case” that presently appears unresolved; the Court noted that the child support issues needed to be addressed by DCSS and a hearing is set on that issue for October 8; as of 9/18 neither lawyer has seen it necessary to file a Status Report, a CMCS or a FLIS. This Court finds that in complicated cases they are not only helpful but necessary. The matter will be continued to October 29, 2019, at 10:30am; status reports due one week in advance.

Background

On 8/6 this Court entered an order related to the DVRO request: this case was continued from July 30 calendar to August 6 calendar. The case needs to have careful courtroom management because of the DVRO now outstanding and overlapping the dissolution case. The case was set for hearing on the DVRO matter for August 6 in this Department for 10:30 am; the 8/12 date in Department #9 was vacated. This Court needed to determine whether or not the terms and conditions of the TDVRO should be continued. Additionally, the case needs to be referred to DCSS forthwith. As for the Dissolution case, the Court explained to the parties their options. Thereafter, upon the recommendation of Mr. Karow, the cases were continued to September 24 to allow Mr. Karow the chance to resolve the DVRO issues since similar issues were in the criminal courts. The DVRO was modified to allow the parents to communicate in regards to the children so long as that communication is relatively brief but always peaceful. The Court acknowledged that neither lawyer apparently represents the parents in the CMC aspect of the dissolution case; the CMC was also continued to 9/24. The Temporary Restraining Order was modified to allow brief and peaceful contact for child visitation and exchanges. All other temporary orders remain in full force and effect until the next hearing date.

Subsequently on 9/18/19 the parties with the help of Family Court Services signed a Stipulation re Custody and Visitation and the Court approved it. The Court notes that Ms. Diaz signed it as counsel for mother; but Mr. Karow did not sign it as counsel for father.

The Court’s Conclusions

This is not a simple case(s); but neither lawyer has seen it necessary to file a Status Report, a CMCS or a FLIS. The matter should be continued to October 29, 2019, at 10:30am; status reports due one week in advance.