1035-00002 · Calderwood & Harkness LLP · Pleadings & Court Filings

fonseca-declaration-iso-rfo.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

29 / 36 ← → ✕

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

I, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, declare as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION AND IDENTITY OF DECLARANT

1. My name is Marguerite Delphine Fonseca. I was born on June 14, 1984, and I am currently thirty-nine (39) years of age. I am the Petitioner in the above-captioned matter.

2. I currently reside at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. I have resided at this address continuously since before the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership and it is the primary residence of the two minor children who are the subject of this Request for Order.

3. I make this Declaration in support of Petitioner's Request for Order re Custody and Child Support, which is filed concurrently herewith. This Declaration is intended to provide the Court with the factual background necessary to evaluate the requested relief, including the establishment of a formal custody and visitation schedule and the calculation of child support under the California guidelines.

4. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. Except where otherwise indicated, the matters set forth herein are based upon my own direct observation and experience.

II. EMPLOYMENT AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND

5. I am currently employed as Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. ("Luminos"), a streaming media and production company headquartered at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. In this role, I oversee the development, production, and delivery of a slate of approximately eighteen (18) original scripted and unscripted series for the Luminos streaming platform.

6. I have been employed by Luminos since 2017. Prior to my current position, I held progressively senior roles within the company's content development division. My work at Luminos is office-based at the Burbank headquarters, and my schedule is generally predictable, consisting of regular weekday business hours with occasional evening events or weekend obligations that are planned well in advance.

7. My current annual compensation consists of the following components:

(a) Base salary: Four Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($485,000) per year.

(b) Discretionary annual bonus: Based on a three-year average, my discretionary bonus has averaged approximately Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000) per year. This bonus is not guaranteed but has been paid consistently for each of the past three fiscal years.

(c) Annual equity grants: I receive annual grants of restricted stock units ("RSUs") in Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. These RSUs vest over a four-year period, and based on the current vesting schedule, the annual value of vesting RSUs is approximately One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000) per year.

8. In total, my approximate annual compensation is Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000). My gross monthly income, computed by dividing total annual compensation by twelve, is approximately Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($72,500) per month.

9. A complete Income and Expense Declaration on Judicial Council Form FL-150, setting forth full details of my income, deductions, expenses, and assets, has been prepared and is filed concurrently with this Declaration and the accompanying Request for Order. I incorporate the information set forth in the FL-150 herein by reference.

III. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP AND FAMILY HISTORY

10. Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano was born on March 22, 1982. He is currently forty-one (41) years of age.

11. Mr. Medrano and I registered as domestic partners in the State of California on September 12, 2015. Our domestic partnership was registered with the California Secretary of State under File Number DP-2015-038741. The parties were never married.

12. Two minor children were born of our domestic partnership:

(a) Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017. Isabela was six (6) years of age at the time this Request for Order was filed.

(b) Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019. Mateo was three (3) years of age at the time this Request for Order was filed.

13. Both Isabela and Mateo have lived in the greater Los Angeles area for their entire lives. They were born in Los Angeles, and neither child has ever resided outside of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Their social networks, educational institutions, pediatric healthcare providers, and extended family connections are all based in the Los Angeles area.

14. Both children are healthy and well-adjusted. They have a close and loving bond with one another, and I believe it is essential to their well-being that they continue to reside together under any custody arrangement ordered by this Court.

IV. DISSOLUTION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP

15. On July 8, 2022, I filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership in this Court, initiating the above-captioned proceeding, Case No. 22STFL09847, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

16. A Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered on November 3, 2022. The dissolution judgment resolved all issues pertaining to the division of community property and the allocation of debts and obligations between the parties. The judgment also addressed and resolved issues of partner support (analogous to spousal support). Those matters are not at issue in this Request for Order and are not addressed further herein.

17. Critically, the dissolution judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction over the issues of child custody, visitation, and child support. These issues were not adjudicated in connection with the dissolution proceedings and remain pending before this Court. It is this reservation of jurisdiction that gives rise to the instant Request for Order.

18. At the time of the dissolution, the parties were operating under a mutual, informal understanding regarding custody and visitation of the minor children. Because the parties believed they could cooperate on these matters without court intervention, no formal orders were sought at that time. As detailed below, subsequent events have demonstrated that a formal, court-ordered custody and visitation schedule is necessary to protect the best interests of the children.

V. RESPONDENT'S BACKGROUND AND EMPLOYMENT

19. Mr. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography. He is a skilled professional who works on feature films and episodic television productions. His work in the entertainment industry is, by its nature, project-based and involves periods of intensive on-set work interspersed with periods between engagements.

20. Mr. Medrano operates primarily through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. To my knowledge, Mr. Medrano is the sole member and manager of Medrano Visuals, LLC, and substantially all of his professional income flows through this entity.

21. Mr. Medrano's annual income is variable due to the freelance and project-based nature of his work. Based on information available to me, including financial disclosures made during the dissolution proceedings and subsequent communications, Mr. Medrano's gross annual income, calculated as a three-year average, is approximately Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000) per year. This yields an imputed gross monthly income of approximately Twenty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($28,333).

22. I recognize that Mr. Medrano's actual income in any given year may be higher or lower than this average, depending on the number and scale of projects he secures. I respectfully request that the Court evaluate Mr. Medrano's income based on the three-year average, as it provides the most accurate and fair representation of his earning capacity given the variable nature of his profession.

23. Mr. Medrano currently resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602. His residence is located approximately six (6) miles from my home in Studio City, which facilitates reasonable custodial exchanges and allows both parents to remain in close geographic proximity to the children's school and activities.

VI. THE CHILDREN'S CURRENT LIVING SITUATION AND EDUCATIONAL ENROLLMENT

24. Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano is currently enrolled in the first grade at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. The annual tuition for Isabela's first-grade program is Thirty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($32,400).

25. Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano is currently enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program at Ridgeview Academy, the same institution attended by his older sister. The annual tuition for Mateo's pre-kindergarten program is Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($26,800).

26. The total combined annual tuition for both children at Ridgeview Academy is Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($59,200).

27. Both children have attended Ridgeview Academy since their respective enrollment ages. Isabela began attending the school's early childhood program when she was approximately three years old, and Mateo was enrolled in the toddler program at approximately age two. The school provides a structured, nurturing, and academically rigorous environment. Both children have formed strong bonds with their teachers and classmates and are thriving both academically and socially within the Ridgeview community.

28. Ridgeview Academy is conveniently located approximately three (3) miles from my home in Studio City and approximately five (5) miles from Mr. Medrano's residence in North Hollywood. Both parents are able to transport the children to and from school without difficulty.

29. Since the entry of the dissolution judgment, the children's primary residence has been with me at the Studio City address. The children have their own bedrooms at my home, and their clothing, toys, school supplies, and personal belongings are principally housed at my residence. The children also maintain personal items and a bedroom at Mr. Medrano's apartment for use during their custodial time with him.

VII. THE INFORMAL CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT FOLLOWING DISSOLUTION

30. Following the entry of the dissolution judgment on November 3, 2022, the parties did not establish a formal custody or visitation order. As noted above, the dissolution judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction over these issues, and at that time, Mr. Medrano and I believed we could manage co-parenting cooperatively without the need for court intervention.

31. Instead, the parties operated under an informal arrangement whereby the children spent the majority of their time with me—approximately four to five days per week—and spent weekends and occasional weeknights with Mr. Medrano. The precise schedule varied from week to week depending on Mr. Medrano's work commitments and the children's school and activity schedules, but the general pattern was consistent: the children were with me during the school week and transitioned to Mr. Medrano's care on Friday evenings or Saturday mornings, returning to me on Sunday evenings.

32. This informal arrangement, while imperfect and lacking the predictability of a formal court order, functioned reasonably well from approximately November 2022 through early February 2023. During this approximately three-month period, the parties were generally able to communicate about scheduling, transitions were handled without significant conflict, and the children appeared to adjust to the new living arrangement with relative ease.

33. Throughout this period, I served as the primary day-to-day caretaker of the children. My responsibilities included, but were not limited to:

(a) Transporting the children to and from Ridgeview Academy each school day, including morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up;

(b) Scheduling, attending, and following up on all medical and dental appointments for both children, including well-child visits, vaccinations, and sick visits;

(d) Scheduling and transporting the children to their extracurricular activities, including Isabela's Saturday morning gymnastics class and Mateo's Tuesday afternoon toddler music program;

(e) Preparing meals, managing bedtime routines, and attending to the children's daily emotional and physical needs;

(f) Communicating with Ridgeview Academy regarding school events, parent-teacher conferences, and administrative matters; and

(g) Coordinating with Mr. Medrano regarding the exchange schedule and any changes to the routine.

34. Mr. Medrano participated in the children's lives during his custodial time and was an engaged and caring parent when present. I do not dispute that Mr. Medrano loves the children and that they love him. However, the reality of the informal arrangement was that the substantial majority of the day-to-day caregiving burden fell on me, consistent with the pattern that had existed throughout the children's lives, including during the domestic partnership.

VIII. BREAKDOWN OF THE INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT — MR. MEDRANO'S EXTENDED ABSENCE

35. In or around late January 2023, Mr. Medrano informed me that he had accepted a position as director of photography on a feature film requiring an extended on-location shoot in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Medrano explained that the production schedule would require him to be on location in Vancouver for approximately seven (7) weeks.

36. Mr. Medrano provided minimal advance notice of the duration and timing of his absence. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Medrano first mentioned the possibility of the Vancouver project in passing approximately two weeks before his departure, but he did not confirm the commitment or communicate the full extent of the time away until shortly before he left. He did not engage in any meaningful discussion with me about how his prolonged absence would affect the children or how we might structure an alternative arrangement to maintain his relationship with them during his time away.

37. Mr. Medrano departed for Vancouver in approximately early to mid-February 2023. He did not return to Los Angeles until approximately late March or early April 2023—a period of approximately seven consecutive weeks.

38. During the entire seven-week period of Mr. Medrano's absence, he was unable to exercise any custodial time with the children whatsoever. The children remained exclusively in my care for the duration. I was solely responsible for all aspects of their daily lives, including school transportation, meals, bedtime routines, weekend activities, medical care, and emotional support.

39. Mr. Medrano did not discuss or negotiate any alternative arrangements for maintaining his relationship with the children during his time away. For example, he did not propose a regular schedule of video calls at set times, did not arrange for the children to spend time with his parents or other family members in his absence, and did not suggest any other measures to maintain continuity in the children's relationship with him.

40. Although Mr. Medrano made intermittent video calls with the children during his seven-week absence, these calls were irregular in frequency and often occurred at inconvenient times due to the demands of his production schedule. Some calls came late in the evening, after the children's bedtime, or were cut short because Mr. Medrano was called back to set. On several occasions, days passed between calls. The lack of regularity made it difficult for the children to anticipate when they would next speak with their father, which compounded their sense of uncertainty.

41. The impact of Mr. Medrano's prolonged absence on the children was significant and observable. Isabela, who was six years old at the time, expressed confusion and sadness about her father's extended time away. On multiple occasions, Isabela asked me when her father would come home, how many more days until he returned, and why he had to go away for so long. These questions were often accompanied by visible distress, including crying and withdrawal. I did my best to reassure Isabela and to present Mr. Medrano's absence in a positive light, explaining that her father was working on an important project and that he loved her very much, but the duration of the absence clearly took a toll on her emotional well-being.

42. Mateo, who was three years old at the time, displayed behavioral regression consistent with the stress of the disrupted routine. Specifically, Mateo exhibited increased clinginess, reluctance to separate from me at school drop-off (which had not been an issue prior to Mr. Medrano's departure), difficulty falling asleep at night, and occasional nighttime waking and crying. While I cannot state with medical certainty that these behavioral changes were caused by Mr. Medrano's absence, the temporal correlation was unmistakable, and the behaviors subsided gradually after Mr. Medrano's return.

IX. CONTINUED INSTABILITY AND NEED FOR A FORMAL ORDER

43. Upon Mr. Medrano's return from Vancouver in approximately late March or early April 2023, the parties attempted to resume the informal custody arrangement. However, the arrangement proved unworkable.

44. Mr. Medrano, understandably wanting to reconnect with the children after his extended absence, sought to "make up" for lost time by requesting extended blocks of custodial time that went significantly beyond the pre-departure pattern. Specifically, Mr. Medrano requested that the children spend four or five consecutive days with him, including school nights, on multiple occasions. While I sympathized with Mr. Medrano's desire to spend time with the children, these requests disrupted the children's school-week routine and conflicted with their extracurricular activity schedules.

45. Disagreements arose between the parties regarding scheduling, pick-up and drop-off logistics, and the children's participation in after-school activities. Mr. Medrano expressed frustration that the children's scheduled activities limited his available custodial time, and I expressed concern that deviating from the established routine was unsettling for the children. These disagreements, while not rising to the level of hostility, became increasingly frequent and difficult to resolve through informal communication alone.

46. Of particular concern, Mr. Medrano indicated in conversations with me in approximately April 2023 that he anticipated additional on-location work opportunities outside of California—and potentially outside of the United States—in the coming months. While Mr. Medrano did not identify specific projects, he conveyed that his professional aspirations involved pursuing high-profile cinematography work that would likely require extended travel. This disclosure confirmed my growing concern that the informal arrangement was inherently unstable and could not provide the consistency and predictability that the children require.

47. As these difficulties mounted, I became increasingly convinced that the lack of a formal, court-ordered custody and visitation schedule was detrimental to the children's need for stability, predictability, and routine. The informal arrangement, which had functioned adequately during a limited period of relative calm, proved incapable of withstanding the disruptions caused by Mr. Medrano's professional travel obligations. Without a formal order in place, neither parent had enforceable rights or obligations, and the children were left vulnerable to the unpredictability of ad hoc scheduling decisions.

48. The children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy requires consistent attendance during the school year. The school's academic calendar runs from early September through mid-June, and the school's policies emphasize the importance of regular attendance and punctuality. The informal arrangement, as disrupted by Mr. Medrano's travel and the ensuing scheduling conflicts, made it difficult to ensure that the children's school attendance remained consistent and that their daily routine—including morning preparation, transportation, after-school activities, homework, dinner, and bedtime—proceeded in an orderly and predictable fashion.

X. DECLARANT'S PROPOSED CUSTODY AND TIMESHARE ARRANGEMENT

49. For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the Court establish a formal custody and visitation order governing the parties' respective rights and responsibilities with respect to the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.

50. Legal Custody. I request that the Court award joint legal custody of both minor children to both parties. Joint legal custody will ensure that both Mr. Medrano and I participate in major decisions affecting the children's health, education, and welfare, consistent with our shared commitment to co-parenting. However, I respectfully request that the Court grant me tie-breaking authority on educational decisions—including but not limited to decisions regarding school enrollment, tutoring, special education services, and educational testing—given my role as the parent who has consistently managed the children's schooling, maintained communication with Ridgeview Academy, and overseen the children's educational development. In the event the parties are unable to agree on a material educational decision after good-faith discussion, the tie-breaking authority would prevent impasse and ensure timely resolution in the children's best interests.

51. Physical Custody. I request that the Court award joint physical custody of both minor children, with the children's primary residence designated as my home at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Designating my home as the children's primary residence reflects the historical caregiving arrangement and provides the children with continuity and stability in their living environment.

52. Timeshare — Regular School Year. I propose a timeshare arrangement of approximately sixty-five percent (65%) of custodial time with me and approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of custodial time with Mr. Medrano during the regular school year (defined as the period from the first day of school through the last day of school at Ridgeview Academy, exclusive of holiday and vacation periods addressed separately below). This proposed timeshare reflects the historical caregiving pattern, in which the children have spent the majority of their time with me, and accommodates the children's need for school-week stability and routine. Under this arrangement, Mr. Medrano would have custodial time on alternating weekends (Friday evening through Sunday evening) and one weeknight overnight per week (e.g., Wednesday evening through Thursday morning), with the children with me for the remainder of the school week.

53. Summer Schedule. I propose a fifty-fifty (50/50) split of summer break time. Based on Ridgeview Academy's academic calendar, the summer break is approximately ten (10) weeks, or seventy (70) days. Under this proposal, each parent would have approximately thirty-five (35) overnights during the summer break. The summer schedule would be determined by mutual agreement of the parties no later than April 1 of each year, and in the event the parties cannot agree, each parent would select alternating two-week blocks beginning with Mr. Medrano in odd-numbered years and me in even-numbered years.

54. Holiday Schedule. I propose an alternating even/odd year rotation for major holidays and school vacation periods, structured as follows:

(a) Thanksgiving Break: In even-numbered years, the children shall be with me from the Wednesday before Thanksgiving at 3:00 p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m. In odd-numbered years, the children shall be with Mr. Medrano during the same period.

(b) Winter Break: In even-numbered years, the children shall be with me for the first half of winter break and with Mr. Medrano for the second half, with the midpoint determined by dividing the total number of break days in half. In odd-numbered years, the arrangement shall be reversed.

(c) Spring Break: In even-numbered years, the children shall be with Mr. Medrano for spring break. In odd-numbered years, the children shall be with me for spring break.

(d) Mother's Day / Father's Day: The children shall be with me on Mother's Day each year and with Mr. Medrano on Father's Day each year, regardless of the regular schedule.

(e) Children's Birthdays: Each child's birthday shall be spent with the parent whose regular custodial time it falls on, with the other parent having the right to celebrate with the child on the nearest weekend day.

(f) Each Parent's Birthday: Each parent shall have the right to spend a reasonable period of time with the children on the parent's birthday, with reasonable advance notice and cooperation between the parties.

55. Travel Provisions. Given Mr. Medrano's work-related travel obligations and the disruption caused by his extended absence in Vancouver, I respectfully request that the Court include the following travel provisions in any custody order:

(a) Domestic travel outside California: Either parent shall provide the other parent with at least fourteen (14) calendar days' advance written notice before taking either child outside the State of California for any reason, including but not limited to vacation, family visits, or work-related travel.

(b) International travel: Either parent shall provide the other parent with at least thirty (30) calendar days' advance written notice before taking either child outside of the United States. International travel shall require the written consent of the other parent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event of a dispute regarding international travel, either parent may seek resolution through the Court on an expedited basis.

56. On-Location Work Provisions. Recognizing the realities of both parties' employment in the entertainment industry, I request that the custody order include provisions addressing extended work-related absences. Specifically, if either parent's work requires travel of more than fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days during which the traveling parent is unable to exercise custodial time, the custodial time scheduled for those days shall transfer to the non-traveling parent. The traveling parent shall be entitled to make-up custodial time to be scheduled within a reasonable period following the traveling parent's return, with the timing and duration of make-up time to be agreed upon by the parties in good faith or, in the event of a dispute, determined by the Court.

XI. CHILD SUPPORT

57. I am aware that, given the significant disparity in the parties' respective incomes and the proposed timeshare arrangement (in which the children spend the majority of their time with me), the California child support guidelines may result in a child support obligation payable by me to Mr. Medrano. I acknowledge this possibility and request that the Court calculate and order child support consistent with the guideline formula set forth in Family Code section 4055 et seq.

58. For purposes of the guideline calculation, the relevant income figures are as follows:

(a) Declarant's gross monthly income: Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($72,500), based on total annual compensation of approximately Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000).

(b) Respondent's imputed gross monthly income: Twenty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($28,333), based on a three-year average annual income of approximately Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000).

59. The precise guideline child support amount will depend on the final timeshare arrangement ordered by the Court, as the timeshare percentage is a critical input in the guideline formula. I respectfully request that the Court calculate guideline support based on whatever timeshare the Court ultimately orders, whether on a temporary or permanent basis.

60. In addition to base child support, I respectfully request that the Court address the following categories of children's expenses, which may be addressed as add-on expenses under Family Code section 4062 or through other appropriate mechanisms:

(a) Educational expenses: The combined annual tuition for both children at Ridgeview Academy is Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($59,200). Both children have attended Ridgeview since their earliest eligible enrollment, and the school has been an integral part of their lives. I request that the Court allocate responsibility for tuition costs between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes, or on such other basis as the Court deems equitable.

(b) Extracurricular activity costs: Both children participate in age-appropriate extracurricular activities, including Isabela's gymnastics classes and Mateo's music program. These activities are important to the children's development and well-being. I request that the Court allocate responsibility for extracurricular activity costs between the parties.

(c) Healthcare costs: Both children are currently covered under my employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. The insurance carrier is Veridian Health Insurance Co. I intend to continue maintaining this coverage for the children. I request that the Court order that I continue to provide health insurance coverage for the children and that the parties share responsibility for any uninsured or unreimbursed medical, dental, vision, and mental health expenses in proportion to their respective incomes, or on such other basis as the Court deems equitable.

XII. BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN

61. I believe that the custody, timeshare, and child support arrangements proposed herein are in the best interests of both Isabela and Mateo, as required by Family Code section 3011 and related provisions.

62. The children need stability, consistency, and predictability in their daily lives. They are young—six and three years old, respectively—and are at a developmental stage where routine and structure are particularly important. The disruption caused by Mr. Medrano's extended absence and the subsequent breakdown of the informal custody arrangement underscored the vulnerability of the current situation and the urgent need for a formal, enforceable order that provides a clear framework for both parents.

63. I have been the primary caretaker of both children throughout their lives. From their births through the present day, I have been the parent principally responsible for their day-to-day care, including feeding, bathing, dressing, school preparation, transportation, medical care, and emotional support. While Mr. Medrano has been a loving and involved father when present, the reality of our respective roles—both during the domestic partnership and after the dissolution—is that I have borne the primary caregiving responsibility. The proposed custody arrangement reflects and preserves this historical pattern while ensuring that Mr. Medrano continues to play a meaningful and significant role in the children's lives.

64. My employment at Luminos Entertainment Group provides a stable and predictable work schedule. My office is located in Burbank, approximately seven miles from both my home and the children's school, and my work hours are generally regular weekday hours. While I occasionally have evening events or weekend obligations, these are planned well in advance and can be accommodated through appropriate childcare arrangements. In contrast, Mr. Medrano's freelance work as a cinematographer involves unpredictable schedules, irregular hours during active productions, and the potential for extended on-location travel at short notice. These realities do not diminish Mr. Medrano's love for the children or his capacity as a parent, but they do bear on the question of which parent is best positioned to provide the day-to-day consistency that young children require.

65. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I fully support the children's relationship with Mr. Medrano. I recognize that both Isabela and Mateo love their father deeply, and I believe that a strong, ongoing relationship with Mr. Medrano is essential to their emotional health and development. My proposed custody arrangement is designed to preserve meaningful and regular custodial time for Mr. Medrano, providing him with approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of custodial time during the school year and a full fifty percent (50%) during the summer. I have no desire to limit or restrict Mr. Medrano's relationship with the children; rather, I seek a structured arrangement that provides the stability the children need while protecting both parents' rights.

66. I am open to participating in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution processes with Mr. Medrano in an effort to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the custody and support issues without the need for a contested hearing. I believe that a cooperative approach is in the best interests of the children and that the parties may be able to reach agreement with the assistance of a mediator or other neutral third party. However, given the current instability and the absence of any formal order, I respectfully submit that it is essential for the Court to enter temporary orders to protect the children's interests in the interim, regardless of whether the parties are able to reach a negotiated resolution of the permanent issues.

XIII. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY ORDERS PENDING RESOLUTION

67. Given the urgency of the situation and the demonstrated instability of the current informal arrangement, I respectfully request that the Court enter temporary orders establishing a custody, visitation, and child support framework pending final resolution of the issues raised in this Request for Order.

68. Temporary Timeshare. I request that the Court enter a temporary order establishing a timeshare of approximately sixty percent (60%) of custodial time with me and approximately forty percent (40%) of custodial time with Mr. Medrano. This proposed temporary timeshare is slightly more generous to Mr. Medrano than my proposed permanent arrangement, reflecting the general pattern of custody that existed prior to Mr. Medrano's departure for Vancouver and acknowledging the importance of maintaining a robust father-child relationship during the pendency of these proceedings. The specific schedule for the temporary arrangement could mirror the school-year schedule described above (alternating weekends plus one weeknight overnight to Mr. Medrano), with additional flexibility during non-school periods.

69. Temporary Travel Restrictions. I request that the temporary orders include a provision preventing either parent from removing the children from the State of California without at least fourteen (14) calendar days' advance written notice to the other parent. For international travel, I request that the temporary orders require thirty (30) calendar days' advance written notice and the written consent of the other parent. These provisions are necessary to prevent a recurrence of the type of unilateral decision-making that led to Mr. Medrano's extended absence and the resulting disruption to the children's lives.

70. Appointment of Minor's Counsel. Pursuant to Family Code section 3150, I respectfully request that the Court appoint counsel for the minor children, Isabela and Mateo, to ensure that the children's interests are independently represented in these proceedings. Given the children's young ages—six and three, respectively—they are unable to articulate their own preferences or advocate for their own interests. The appointment of a qualified attorney to represent the children would provide the Court with an independent perspective on the children's needs and would serve as an additional safeguard to ensure that the ultimate custody arrangement truly serves their best interests.

71. Custody Evaluation. I further request that the Court consider ordering a custody evaluation by a qualified mental health professional, pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 or Family Code section 3111, to assist the Court in determining the custody and visitation arrangement that best serves the children's interests. A professional evaluation would provide the Court with expert insight into the children's developmental needs, the parties' respective parenting capacities, and the optimal custodial arrangement for these particular children in these particular circumstances. I am willing to share in the cost of such an evaluation in proportion to the parties' respective incomes or on any other basis the Court deems appropriate.

XIV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

72. For all of the reasons set forth in this Declaration, I respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief:

1. Enter a temporary custody and visitation order establishing a timeshare of approximately sixty percent (60%) to Declarant and forty percent (40%) to Respondent, pending final resolution of custody and visitation issues;

2. Appoint counsel to represent the interests of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, pursuant to Family Code section 3150;

3. Order a custody evaluation by a qualified professional pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 or Family Code section 3111;

4. Order child support consistent with the California guideline calculation under Family Code section 4055 et seq., to be determined based on the timeshare ordered by the Court, along with appropriate allocation of educational expenses, extracurricular activity costs, and healthcare costs;

5. Set a schedule for further proceedings, including a date for a hearing on the permanent custody and visitation arrangement and any related matters; and

6. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

XV. VERIFICATION

I, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on May 2, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.

________________________________________

MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA Declarant / Petitioner

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Name: Devon Archer

Title: Lead Associate

Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca Matter No. 1035-00002

777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017

MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA,	Case No. 22STFL09847
Petitioner,	DECLARATION OF MARGUERITE D. FONSECA IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ORDER RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT

Date: May 2, 2023

RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO,

Time: TBD

Respondent.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
I, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, declare as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION AND IDENTITY OF DECLARANT
1.  My name is Marguerite Delphine Fonseca. I was born on June 14, 1984, and I am currently thirty-nine (39) years of age. I am the Petitioner in the above-captioned matter.
2.  I currently reside at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. I have resided at this address continuously since before the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership and it is the primary residence of the two minor children who are the subject of this Request for Order.
3.  I make this Declaration in support of Petitioner's Request for Order re Custody and Child Support, which is filed concurrently herewith. This Declaration is intended to provide the Court with the factual background necessary to evaluate the requested relief, including the establishment of a formal custody and visitation schedule and the calculation of child support under the California guidelines.
4.  I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. Except where otherwise indicated, the matters set forth herein are based upon my own direct observation and experience.
II. EMPLOYMENT AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
5.  I am currently employed as Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. ("Luminos"), a streaming media and production company headquartered at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. In this role, I oversee the development, production, and delivery of a slate of approximately eighteen (18) original scripted and unscripted series for the Luminos streaming platform.
6.  I have been employed by Luminos since 2017. Prior to my current position, I held progressively senior roles within the company's content development division. My work at Luminos is office-based at the Burbank headquarters, and my schedule is generally predictable, consisting of regular weekday business hours with occasional evening events or weekend obligations that are planned well in advance.
7.  My current annual compensation consists of the following components:
(a) Base salary: Four Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($485,000) per year.
(b) Discretionary annual bonus: Based on a three-year average, my discretionary bonus has averaged approximately Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000) per year. This bonus is not guaranteed but has been paid consistently for each of the past three fiscal years.
(c) Annual equity grants: I receive annual grants of restricted stock units ("RSUs") in Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. These RSUs vest over a four-year period, and based on the current vesting schedule, the annual value of vesting RSUs is approximately One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000) per year.
8.  In total, my approximate annual compensation is Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000). My gross monthly income, computed by dividing total annual compensation by twelve, is approximately Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($72,500) per month.
9.  A complete Income and Expense Declaration on Judicial Council Form FL-150, setting forth full details of my income, deductions, expenses, and assets, has been prepared and is filed concurrently with this Declaration and the accompanying Request for Order. I incorporate the information set forth in the FL-150 herein by reference.
III. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP AND FAMILY HISTORY
10.  Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano was born on March 22, 1982. He is currently forty-one (41) years of age.
11.  Mr. Medrano and I registered as domestic partners in the State of California on September 12, 2015. Our domestic partnership was registered with the California Secretary of State under File Number DP-2015-038741. The parties were never married.
12.  Two minor children were born of our domestic partnership:
(a) Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017. Isabela was six (6) years of age at the time this Request for Order was filed.
(b) Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019. Mateo was three (3) years of age at the time this Request for Order was filed.
13.  Both Isabela and Mateo have lived in the greater Los Angeles area for their entire lives. They were born in Los Angeles, and neither child has ever resided outside of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Their social networks, educational institutions, pediatric healthcare providers, and extended family connections are all based in the Los Angeles area.
14.  Both children are healthy and well-adjusted. They have a close and loving bond with one another, and I believe it is essential to their well-being that they continue to reside together under any custody arrangement ordered by this Court.
IV. DISSOLUTION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
15.  On July 8, 2022, I filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership in this Court, initiating the above-captioned proceeding, Case No. 22STFL09847, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
16.  A Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered on November 3, 2022. The dissolution judgment resolved all issues pertaining to the division of community property and the allocation of debts and obligations between the parties. The judgment also addressed and resolved issues of partner support (analogous to spousal support). Those matters are not at issue in this Request for Order and are not addressed further herein.
17.  Critically, the dissolution judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction over the issues of child custody, visitation, and child support. These issues were not adjudicated in connection with the dissolution proceedings and remain pending before this Court. It is this reservation of jurisdiction that gives rise to the instant Request for Order.
18.  At the time of the dissolution, the parties were operating under a mutual, informal understanding regarding custody and visitation of the minor children. Because the parties believed they could cooperate on these matters without court intervention, no formal orders were sought at that time. As detailed below, subsequent events have demonstrated that a formal, court-ordered custody and visitation schedule is necessary to protect the best interests of the children.
V. RESPONDENT'S BACKGROUND AND EMPLOYMENT
19.  Mr. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography. He is a skilled professional who works on feature films and episodic television productions. His work in the entertainment industry is, by its nature, project-based and involves periods of intensive on-set work interspersed with periods between engagements.
20.  Mr. Medrano operates primarily through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. To my knowledge, Mr. Medrano is the sole member and manager of Medrano Visuals, LLC, and substantially all of his professional income flows through this entity.
21.  Mr. Medrano's annual income is variable due to the freelance and project-based nature of his work. Based on information available to me, including financial disclosures made during the dissolution proceedings and subsequent communications, Mr. Medrano's gross annual income, calculated as a three-year average, is approximately Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000) per year. This yields an imputed gross monthly income of approximately Twenty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($28,333).
22.  I recognize that Mr. Medrano's actual income in any given year may be higher or lower than this average, depending on the number and scale of projects he secures. I respectfully request that the Court evaluate Mr. Medrano's income based on the three-year average, as it provides the most accurate and fair representation of his earning capacity given the variable nature of his profession.
23.  Mr. Medrano currently resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602. His residence is located approximately six (6) miles from my home in Studio City, which facilitates reasonable custodial exchanges and allows both parents to remain in close geographic proximity to the children's school and activities.
VI. THE CHILDREN'S CURRENT LIVING SITUATION AND EDUCATIONAL ENROLLMENT
24.  Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano is currently enrolled in the first grade at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. The annual tuition for Isabela's first-grade program is Thirty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($32,400).
25.  Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano is currently enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program at Ridgeview Academy, the same institution attended by his older sister. The annual tuition for Mateo's pre-kindergarten program is Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($26,800).
26.  The total combined annual tuition for both children at Ridgeview Academy is Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($59,200).
27.  Both children have attended Ridgeview Academy since their respective enrollment ages. Isabela began attending the school's early childhood program when she was approximately three years old, and Mateo was enrolled in the toddler program at approximately age two. The school provides a structured, nurturing, and academically rigorous environment. Both children have formed strong bonds with their teachers and classmates and are thriving both academically and socially within the Ridgeview community.
28.  Ridgeview Academy is conveniently located approximately three (3) miles from my home in Studio City and approximately five (5) miles from Mr. Medrano's residence in North Hollywood. Both parents are able to transport the children to and from school without difficulty.
29.  Since the entry of the dissolution judgment, the children's primary residence has been with me at the Studio City address. The children have their own bedrooms at my home, and their clothing, toys, school supplies, and personal belongings are principally housed at my residence. The children also maintain personal items and a bedroom at Mr. Medrano's apartment for use during their custodial time with him.
VII. THE INFORMAL CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT FOLLOWING DISSOLUTION
30.  Following the entry of the dissolution judgment on November 3, 2022, the parties did not establish a formal custody or visitation order. As noted above, the dissolution judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction over these issues, and at that time, Mr. Medrano and I believed we could manage co-parenting cooperatively without the need for court intervention.
31.  Instead, the parties operated under an informal arrangement whereby the children spent the majority of their time with me—approximately four to five days per week—and spent weekends and occasional weeknights with Mr. Medrano. The precise schedule varied from week to week depending on Mr. Medrano's work commitments and the children's school and activity schedules, but the general pattern was consistent: the children were with me during the school week and transitioned to Mr. Medrano's care on Friday evenings or Saturday mornings, returning to me on Sunday evenings.
32.  This informal arrangement, while imperfect and lacking the predictability of a formal court order, functioned reasonably well from approximately November 2022 through early February 2023. During this approximately three-month period, the parties were generally able to communicate about scheduling, transitions were handled without significant conflict, and the children appeared to adjust to the new living arrangement with relative ease.
33.  Throughout this period, I served as the primary day-to-day caretaker of the children. My responsibilities included, but were not limited to:
(a) Transporting the children to and from Ridgeview Academy each school day, including morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up;
(b) Scheduling, attending, and following up on all medical and dental appointments for both children, including well-child visits, vaccinations, and sick visits;
(c) Supervising Isabela's homework assignments and coordinating with her teachers regarding her academic progress;
(d) Scheduling and transporting the children to their extracurricular activities, including Isabela's Saturday morning gymnastics class and Mateo's Tuesday afternoon toddler music program;
(e) Preparing meals, managing bedtime routines, and attending to the children's daily emotional and physical needs;
(f) Communicating with Ridgeview Academy regarding school events, parent-teacher conferences, and administrative matters; and
(g) Coordinating with Mr. Medrano regarding the exchange schedule and any changes to the routine.
34.  Mr. Medrano participated in the children's lives during his custodial time and was an engaged and caring parent when present. I do not dispute that Mr. Medrano loves the children and that they love him. However, the reality of the informal arrangement was that the substantial majority of the day-to-day caregiving burden fell on me, consistent with the pattern that had existed throughout the children's lives, including during the domestic partnership.
VIII. BREAKDOWN OF THE INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT — MR. MEDRANO'S EXTENDED ABSENCE
35.  In or around late January 2023, Mr. Medrano informed me that he had accepted a position as director of photography on a feature film requiring an extended on-location shoot in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Medrano explained that the production schedule would require him to be on location in Vancouver for approximately seven (7) weeks.
36.  Mr. Medrano provided minimal advance notice of the duration and timing of his absence. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Medrano first mentioned the possibility of the Vancouver project in passing approximately two weeks before his departure, but he did not confirm the commitment or communicate the full extent of the time away until shortly before he left. He did not engage in any meaningful discussion with me about how his prolonged absence would affect the children or how we might structure an alternative arrangement to maintain his relationship with them during his time away.
37.  Mr. Medrano departed for Vancouver in approximately early to mid-February 2023. He did not return to Los Angeles until approximately late March or early April 2023—a period of approximately seven consecutive weeks.
38.  During the entire seven-week period of Mr. Medrano's absence, he was unable to exercise any custodial time with the children whatsoever. The children remained exclusively in my care for the duration. I was solely responsible for all aspects of their daily lives, including school transportation, meals, bedtime routines, weekend activities, medical care, and emotional support.
39.  Mr. Medrano did not discuss or negotiate any alternative arrangements for maintaining his relationship with the children during his time away. For example, he did not propose a regular schedule of video calls at set times, did not arrange for the children to spend time with his parents or other family members in his absence, and did not suggest any other measures to maintain continuity in the children's relationship with him.
40.  Although Mr. Medrano made intermittent video calls with the children during his seven-week absence, these calls were irregular in frequency and often occurred at inconvenient times due to the demands of his production schedule. Some calls came late in the evening, after the children's bedtime, or were cut short because Mr. Medrano was called back to set. On several occasions, days passed between calls. The lack of regularity made it difficult for the children to anticipate when they would next speak with their father, which compounded their sense of uncertainty.
41.  The impact of Mr. Medrano's prolonged absence on the children was significant and observable. Isabela, who was six years old at the time, expressed confusion and sadness about her father's extended time away. On multiple occasions, Isabela asked me when her father would come home, how many more days until he returned, and why he had to go away for so long. These questions were often accompanied by visible distress, including crying and withdrawal. I did my best to reassure Isabela and to present Mr. Medrano's absence in a positive light, explaining that her father was working on an important project and that he loved her very much, but the duration of the absence clearly took a toll on her emotional well-being.
42.  Mateo, who was three years old at the time, displayed behavioral regression consistent with the stress of the disrupted routine. Specifically, Mateo exhibited increased clinginess, reluctance to separate from me at school drop-off (which had not been an issue prior to Mr. Medrano's departure), difficulty falling asleep at night, and occasional nighttime waking and crying. While I cannot state with medical certainty that these behavioral changes were caused by Mr. Medrano's absence, the temporal correlation was unmistakable, and the behaviors subsided gradually after Mr. Medrano's return.
IX. CONTINUED INSTABILITY AND NEED FOR A FORMAL ORDER
43.  Upon Mr. Medrano's return from Vancouver in approximately late March or early April 2023, the parties attempted to resume the informal custody arrangement. However, the arrangement proved unworkable.
44.  Mr. Medrano, understandably wanting to reconnect with the children after his extended absence, sought to "make up" for lost time by requesting extended blocks of custodial time that went significantly beyond the pre-departure pattern. Specifically, Mr. Medrano requested that the children spend four or five consecutive days with him, including school nights, on multiple occasions. While I sympathized with Mr. Medrano's desire to spend time with the children, these requests disrupted the children's school-week routine and conflicted with their extracurricular activity schedules.
45.  Disagreements arose between the parties regarding scheduling, pick-up and drop-off logistics, and the children's participation in after-school activities. Mr. Medrano expressed frustration that the children's scheduled activities limited his available custodial time, and I expressed concern that deviating from the established routine was unsettling for the children. These disagreements, while not rising to the level of hostility, became increasingly frequent and difficult to resolve through informal communication alone.
46.  Of particular concern, Mr. Medrano indicated in conversations with me in approximately April 2023 that he anticipated additional on-location work opportunities outside of California—and potentially outside of the United States—in the coming months. While Mr. Medrano did not identify specific projects, he conveyed that his professional aspirations involved pursuing high-profile cinematography work that would likely require extended travel. This disclosure confirmed my growing concern that the informal arrangement was inherently unstable and could not provide the consistency and predictability that the children require.
47.  As these difficulties mounted, I became increasingly convinced that the lack of a formal, court-ordered custody and visitation schedule was detrimental to the children's need for stability, predictability, and routine. The informal arrangement, which had functioned adequately during a limited period of relative calm, proved incapable of withstanding the disruptions caused by Mr. Medrano's professional travel obligations. Without a formal order in place, neither parent had enforceable rights or obligations, and the children were left vulnerable to the unpredictability of ad hoc scheduling decisions.
48.  The children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy requires consistent attendance during the school year. The school's academic calendar runs from early September through mid-June, and the school's policies emphasize the importance of regular attendance and punctuality. The informal arrangement, as disrupted by Mr. Medrano's travel and the ensuing scheduling conflicts, made it difficult to ensure that the children's school attendance remained consistent and that their daily routine—including morning preparation, transportation, after-school activities, homework, dinner, and bedtime—proceeded in an orderly and predictable fashion.
X. DECLARANT'S PROPOSED CUSTODY AND TIMESHARE ARRANGEMENT
49.  For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the Court establish a formal custody and visitation order governing the parties' respective rights and responsibilities with respect to the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.
50.  Legal Custody. I request that the Court award joint legal custody of both minor children to both parties. Joint legal custody will ensure that both Mr. Medrano and I participate in major decisions affecting the children's health, education, and welfare, consistent with our shared commitment to co-parenting. However, I respectfully request that the Court grant me tie-breaking authority on educational decisions—including but not limited to decisions regarding school enrollment, tutoring, special education services, and educational testing—given my role as the parent who has consistently managed the children's schooling, maintained communication with Ridgeview Academy, and overseen the children's educational development. In the event the parties are unable to agree on a material educational decision after good-faith discussion, the tie-breaking authority would prevent impasse and ensure timely resolution in the children's best interests.
51.  Physical Custody. I request that the Court award joint physical custody of both minor children, with the children's primary residence designated as my home at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Designating my home as the children's primary residence reflects the historical caregiving arrangement and provides the children with continuity and stability in their living environment.
52.  Timeshare — Regular School Year. I propose a timeshare arrangement of approximately sixty-five percent (65%) of custodial time with me and approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of custodial time with Mr. Medrano during the regular school year (defined as the period from the first day of school through the last day of school at Ridgeview Academy, exclusive of holiday and vacation periods addressed separately below). This proposed timeshare reflects the historical caregiving pattern, in which the children have spent the majority of their time with me, and accommodates the children's need for school-week stability and routine. Under this arrangement, Mr. Medrano would have custodial time on alternating weekends (Friday evening through Sunday evening) and one weeknight overnight per week (e.g., Wednesday evening through Thursday morning), with the children with me for the remainder of the school week.
53.  Summer Schedule. I propose a fifty-fifty (50/50) split of summer break time. Based on Ridgeview Academy's academic calendar, the summer break is approximately ten (10) weeks, or seventy (70) days. Under this proposal, each parent would have approximately thirty-five (35) overnights during the summer break. The summer schedule would be determined by mutual agreement of the parties no later than April 1 of each year, and in the event the parties cannot agree, each parent would select alternating two-week blocks beginning with Mr. Medrano in odd-numbered years and me in even-numbered years.
54.  Holiday Schedule. I propose an alternating even/odd year rotation for major holidays and school vacation periods, structured as follows:
(a) Thanksgiving Break: In even-numbered years, the children shall be with me from the Wednesday before Thanksgiving at 3:00 p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m. In odd-numbered years, the children shall be with Mr. Medrano during the same period.
(b) Winter Break: In even-numbered years, the children shall be with me for the first half of winter break and with Mr. Medrano for the second half, with the midpoint determined by dividing the total number of break days in half. In odd-numbered years, the arrangement shall be reversed.
(c) Spring Break: In even-numbered years, the children shall be with Mr. Medrano for spring break. In odd-numbered years, the children shall be with me for spring break.
(d) Mother's Day / Father's Day: The children shall be with me on Mother's Day each year and with Mr. Medrano on Father's Day each year, regardless of the regular schedule.
(e) Children's Birthdays: Each child's birthday shall be spent with the parent whose regular custodial time it falls on, with the other parent having the right to celebrate with the child on the nearest weekend day.
(f) Each Parent's Birthday: Each parent shall have the right to spend a reasonable period of time with the children on the parent's birthday, with reasonable advance notice and cooperation between the parties.
55.  Travel Provisions. Given Mr. Medrano's work-related travel obligations and the disruption caused by his extended absence in Vancouver, I respectfully request that the Court include the following travel provisions in any custody order:
(a) Domestic travel outside California: Either parent shall provide the other parent with at least fourteen (14) calendar days' advance written notice before taking either child outside the State of California for any reason, including but not limited to vacation, family visits, or work-related travel.
(b) International travel: Either parent shall provide the other parent with at least thirty (30) calendar days' advance written notice before taking either child outside of the United States. International travel shall require the written consent of the other parent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event of a dispute regarding international travel, either parent may seek resolution through the Court on an expedited basis.
56.  On-Location Work Provisions. Recognizing the realities of both parties' employment in the entertainment industry, I request that the custody order include provisions addressing extended work-related absences. Specifically, if either parent's work requires travel of more than fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days during which the traveling parent is unable to exercise custodial time, the custodial time scheduled for those days shall transfer to the non-traveling parent. The traveling parent shall be entitled to make-up custodial time to be scheduled within a reasonable period following the traveling parent's return, with the timing and duration of make-up time to be agreed upon by the parties in good faith or, in the event of a dispute, determined by the Court.
XI. CHILD SUPPORT
57.  I am aware that, given the significant disparity in the parties' respective incomes and the proposed timeshare arrangement (in which the children spend the majority of their time with me), the California child support guidelines may result in a child support obligation payable by me to Mr. Medrano. I acknowledge this possibility and request that the Court calculate and order child support consistent with the guideline formula set forth in Family Code section 4055 et seq.
58.  For purposes of the guideline calculation, the relevant income figures are as follows:
(a) Declarant's gross monthly income: Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($72,500), based on total annual compensation of approximately Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000).
(b) Respondent's imputed gross monthly income: Twenty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($28,333), based on a three-year average annual income of approximately Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000).
(c) Combined gross monthly income: Approximately One Hundred Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($100,833).
59.  The precise guideline child support amount will depend on the final timeshare arrangement ordered by the Court, as the timeshare percentage is a critical input in the guideline formula. I respectfully request that the Court calculate guideline support based on whatever timeshare the Court ultimately orders, whether on a temporary or permanent basis.
60.  In addition to base child support, I respectfully request that the Court address the following categories of children's expenses, which may be addressed as add-on expenses under Family Code section 4062 or through other appropriate mechanisms:
(a) Educational expenses: The combined annual tuition for both children at Ridgeview Academy is Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($59,200). Both children have attended Ridgeview since their earliest eligible enrollment, and the school has been an integral part of their lives. I request that the Court allocate responsibility for tuition costs between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes, or on such other basis as the Court deems equitable.
(b) Extracurricular activity costs: Both children participate in age-appropriate extracurricular activities, including Isabela's gymnastics classes and Mateo's music program. These activities are important to the children's development and well-being. I request that the Court allocate responsibility for extracurricular activity costs between the parties.
(c) Healthcare costs: Both children are currently covered under my employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. The insurance carrier is Veridian Health Insurance Co. I intend to continue maintaining this coverage for the children. I request that the Court order that I continue to provide health insurance coverage for the children and that the parties share responsibility for any uninsured or unreimbursed medical, dental, vision, and mental health expenses in proportion to their respective incomes, or on such other basis as the Court deems equitable.
XII. BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN
61.  I believe that the custody, timeshare, and child support arrangements proposed herein are in the best interests of both Isabela and Mateo, as required by Family Code section 3011 and related provisions.
62.  The children need stability, consistency, and predictability in their daily lives. They are young—six and three years old, respectively—and are at a developmental stage where routine and structure are particularly important. The disruption caused by Mr. Medrano's extended absence and the subsequent breakdown of the informal custody arrangement underscored the vulnerability of the current situation and the urgent need for a formal, enforceable order that provides a clear framework for both parents.
63.  I have been the primary caretaker of both children throughout their lives. From their births through the present day, I have been the parent principally responsible for their day-to-day care, including feeding, bathing, dressing, school preparation, transportation, medical care, and emotional support. While Mr. Medrano has been a loving and involved father when present, the reality of our respective roles—both during the domestic partnership and after the dissolution—is that I have borne the primary caregiving responsibility. The proposed custody arrangement reflects and preserves this historical pattern while ensuring that Mr. Medrano continues to play a meaningful and significant role in the children's lives.
64.  My employment at Luminos Entertainment Group provides a stable and predictable work schedule. My office is located in Burbank, approximately seven miles from both my home and the children's school, and my work hours are generally regular weekday hours. While I occasionally have evening events or weekend obligations, these are planned well in advance and can be accommodated through appropriate childcare arrangements. In contrast, Mr. Medrano's freelance work as a cinematographer involves unpredictable schedules, irregular hours during active productions, and the potential for extended on-location travel at short notice. These realities do not diminish Mr. Medrano's love for the children or his capacity as a parent, but they do bear on the question of which parent is best positioned to provide the day-to-day consistency that young children require.
65.  I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I fully support the children's relationship with Mr. Medrano. I recognize that both Isabela and Mateo love their father deeply, and I believe that a strong, ongoing relationship with Mr. Medrano is essential to their emotional health and development. My proposed custody arrangement is designed to preserve meaningful and regular custodial time for Mr. Medrano, providing him with approximately thirty-five percent (35%) of custodial time during the school year and a full fifty percent (50%) during the summer. I have no desire to limit or restrict Mr. Medrano's relationship with the children; rather, I seek a structured arrangement that provides the stability the children need while protecting both parents' rights.
66.  I am open to participating in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution processes with Mr. Medrano in an effort to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the custody and support issues without the need for a contested hearing. I believe that a cooperative approach is in the best interests of the children and that the parties may be able to reach agreement with the assistance of a mediator or other neutral third party. However, given the current instability and the absence of any formal order, I respectfully submit that it is essential for the Court to enter temporary orders to protect the children's interests in the interim, regardless of whether the parties are able to reach a negotiated resolution of the permanent issues.
XIII. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY ORDERS PENDING RESOLUTION
67.  Given the urgency of the situation and the demonstrated instability of the current informal arrangement, I respectfully request that the Court enter temporary orders establishing a custody, visitation, and child support framework pending final resolution of the issues raised in this Request for Order.
68.  Temporary Timeshare. I request that the Court enter a temporary order establishing a timeshare of approximately sixty percent (60%) of custodial time with me and approximately forty percent (40%) of custodial time with Mr. Medrano. This proposed temporary timeshare is slightly more generous to Mr. Medrano than my proposed permanent arrangement, reflecting the general pattern of custody that existed prior to Mr. Medrano's departure for Vancouver and acknowledging the importance of maintaining a robust father-child relationship during the pendency of these proceedings. The specific schedule for the temporary arrangement could mirror the school-year schedule described above (alternating weekends plus one weeknight overnight to Mr. Medrano), with additional flexibility during non-school periods.
69.  Temporary Travel Restrictions. I request that the temporary orders include a provision preventing either parent from removing the children from the State of California without at least fourteen (14) calendar days' advance written notice to the other parent. For international travel, I request that the temporary orders require thirty (30) calendar days' advance written notice and the written consent of the other parent. These provisions are necessary to prevent a recurrence of the type of unilateral decision-making that led to Mr. Medrano's extended absence and the resulting disruption to the children's lives.
70.  Appointment of Minor's Counsel. Pursuant to Family Code section 3150, I respectfully request that the Court appoint counsel for the minor children, Isabela and Mateo, to ensure that the children's interests are independently represented in these proceedings. Given the children's young ages—six and three, respectively—they are unable to articulate their own preferences or advocate for their own interests. The appointment of a qualified attorney to represent the children would provide the Court with an independent perspective on the children's needs and would serve as an additional safeguard to ensure that the ultimate custody arrangement truly serves their best interests.
71.  Custody Evaluation. I further request that the Court consider ordering a custody evaluation by a qualified mental health professional, pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 or Family Code section 3111, to assist the Court in determining the custody and visitation arrangement that best serves the children's interests. A professional evaluation would provide the Court with expert insight into the children's developmental needs, the parties' respective parenting capacities, and the optimal custodial arrangement for these particular children in these particular circumstances. I am willing to share in the cost of such an evaluation in proportion to the parties' respective incomes or on any other basis the Court deems appropriate.
XIV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
72.  For all of the reasons set forth in this Declaration, I respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief:
1.  Enter a temporary custody and visitation order establishing a timeshare of approximately sixty percent (60%) to Declarant and forty percent (40%) to Respondent, pending final resolution of custody and visitation issues;
2.  Appoint counsel to represent the interests of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, pursuant to Family Code section 3150;
3.  Order a custody evaluation by a qualified professional pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 or Family Code section 3111;
4.  Order child support consistent with the California guideline calculation under Family Code section 4055 et seq., to be determined based on the timeshare ordered by the Court, along with appropriate allocation of educational expenses, extracurricular activity costs, and healthcare costs;
5.  Set a schedule for further proceedings, including a date for a hearing on the permanent custody and visitation arrangement and any related matters; and
6.  Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
XV. VERIFICATION
I, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 2, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
________________________________________
MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA Declarant / Petitioner
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Name: Devon Archer
Title: Lead Associate
Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca Matter No. 1035-00002
777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017
MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA, | Case No. 22STFL09847
Petitioner, | DECLARATION OF MARGUERITE D. FONSECA IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ORDER RE CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT
v.
Date: May 2, 2023
RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO, | Dept.: TBD
Time: TBD
Respondent.