Daniel Guerrera v. Shannon Mackall
Case No: 17FL02309
Hearing Date: Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Child Custody

Petitioner’s Req. for Order: Modification Child Custody

Attorneys: Sanford Horowitz for Petitioner (‘father”); Marcus Morales for Respondent (“mother”)

Ruling: Off calendar; there is no valid service of the RFO.

Analysis

Father’s RFO

On 5/31/19 father filed a 44-page RFO seeking modification of child custody; have read it all but can only summarize here; seeks numerous orders; unaccountably he does not complete the statement establishing when the prior order was made or what the order was; reports there is one child born 7/2011, age seven years; and

Father requests that the following orders be made:

1) Mother to confirm visitation is taking place 48 hours prior, (sic) have an appropriate supervisor in place, and the supervisor’s credentials and information shared with Father 48 hours in advance.

2) Mother to provide accurate information as to the qualifications of the supervisor to Father and/or Law Enforcement.

3) Mother to stop filing false police reports against Father, his fiancé and their children.

4) Mother to stop harassing Father, his fiancé and children through email, text or phone calls.

5) The child exchange to take place at the Solvang Sheriff Department as recommended by the SBSO deputy.

6) All communication between Mother and Father be through Our Family Wizard and communication between Mother and Father be only about Caden.

7) Mother to provide Father with monthly logs documenting her sobriety and path of recovery.

8) When Mother does random drug testing at Father’s request, the agency providing the testing send the results and receipt of payment directly to father or father’s attorney. This has not been happening; wants to maintain authenticity and needs a receipt for reimbursement when necessary.

9) Full legal custody to Father.

Mother’s Response filed 6/12

Mother asks that the Court deny all requested relief as no change of circumstances has occurred, service was improper and late; mother’s counsel filed a declaration that is summarized here; mother was not personally served with father’s Request for Order; post-judgment requests for order need to be served on the party to the proceeding and “service upon the attorney of record is not sufficient.” Father only served mother’s counsel with the Request for Order for Modification and did not attempt service on the mother herself; improper service must lead to the denial of father’s requests; also contends there has been no change of circumstance since the last child custody and visitation order.

Court’s Conclusion

Mother appears to be correct; there is no valid POS so the matter must go off calendar.