SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNIFIED FAMILY COURT
MONIQUE A CHAN,
Petitioner
VS.
JASON CHAN,
Respondent
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case Number: FDI-10-772751
Hearing Date: July 30, 2019
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
Department: 404
Presiding: RICHARD C. DARWIN
REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF SCHOOL SELECTION FOR CHILD
TENTATIVE RULING
Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the court makes the following findings and orders:
Upon review of the declarations submitted by both parents, the court finds that each one seeks to enroll their minor daughter, Lala, in a middle school that they genuinely believe would serve Lala’s best interests.
The court further finds that both of the proposed schools, Hoover and Holy Names, have good educational programs and that Lala would likely receive a good education at either school.
Finally, the court notes that the parents share joint legal and physical custody and are both actively engaged in Lala’s education, health, development and well-being.
Where, as here, parents have different opinions about which school would best serve their child’s best interests, the two opinions cannot be reconciled, and the parents have dug in their proverbial heels on the issue, the court is forced to make the difficult decision of which parent will have sole discretion to choose the school.
In this case, the court finds that Lala’s interests would be better served by allowing Father to select the middle school that Lala will attend, and grants Father sole legal custody for the
limited purpose of selecting and enrolling Lala in the school she will attend for 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, which Father has identified as Hoover Middle School.
The court finds that it would not be in Lala’s best interests to attend a school with a religious curriculum and affiliation – like Mother’s preference, Holy Names – without buy-in and consent from the other parent, which is missing here.
Mother’s request for sanctions is denied.
Counsel for Father to prepare the Findings and Order after Hearing.
Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either:
(1) Serve the proposed order to the other party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125 (c), or
(2) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the proposed order after hearing directly to the court.
Failure to submit the order after hearing within 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d).