rfo-custody-and-support.docx

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

rfo-custody-and-support.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

31 / 36 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com

Email: panand@calderwoodharkness.com

Attorneys for Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION, AND CHILD SUPPORT

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA ("Petitioner") hereby respectfully requests that this Court issue orders regarding child custody, visitation (parenting time), and child support concerning the parties' two minor children, ISABELA LUZ FONSECA-MEDRANO and MATEO ELÍAS FONSECA-MEDRANO, as more fully set forth below. This Request for Order is filed pursuant to California Family Code sections 3010 et seq., 3020 et seq., 4050 et seq., and California Rules of Court, rule 5.92, and is made on the grounds that no custody, visitation, or child support orders have been entered in this matter, that the parties' informal post-dissolution arrangement has proven inadequate to protect the children's best interests, and that court orders are necessary to ensure the stability, health, safety, and welfare of the minor children.

This Request for Order is based upon this memorandum, the concurrently filed Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca, the concurrently filed Income and Expense Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca (Judicial Council Form FL-150), the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing on this matter.

I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND JURISDICTIONAL BASIS

1. Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano ("Respondent") are former registered domestic partners in the State of California. The parties registered their domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015, under Secretary of State File No. DP-2015-038741.

2. On July 8, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership in this Court, commencing the action styled In re the Domestic Partnership of Fonseca and Medrano, Case No. 22STFL09847.

3. A Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered by this Court on November 3, 2022. The Judgment resolved all issues pertaining to the division of community property and community obligations. However, the Judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction over all issues relating to the custody, visitation, and child support of the parties' two minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.

4. No custody, visitation, or child support orders have been entered in this matter to date. Since the entry of the Dissolution Judgment, the parties have been operating under an informal, unwritten arrangement regarding the children's time with each parent. As set forth more fully below, this informal arrangement has proven insufficient to protect the children's best interests.

5. This Court has continuing subject matter jurisdiction over custody, visitation, and child support pursuant to California Family Code sections 3022 and 4009. The State of California is the home state of both minor children within the meaning of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"), Family Code sections 3400 et seq. Both children have resided in California since birth and currently reside within the County of Los Angeles. Both parents reside within Los Angeles County. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to enter the orders requested herein.

II. IDENTIFICATION OF MINOR CHILDREN

6. The parties are the parents of two minor children:

(a) Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, currently six (6) years of age. Isabela is currently enrolled in the first grade at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. Annual tuition for Isabela's first-grade program is Thirty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($32,400.00).

(b) Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019, currently three (3) years of age. Mateo is currently enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program at Ridgeview Academy at the same campus address. Annual tuition for Mateo's pre-kindergarten program is Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($26,800.00).

7. Both Isabela and Mateo are the biological children of Petitioner and Respondent. There are no other children of the parties' domestic partnership.

8. At the time of this filing, both children reside primarily with Petitioner at her home located at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Respondent resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602. The parties' residences are located approximately 3.2 miles apart.

III. ORDERS REQUESTED

Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court enter the following orders:

A. Child Custody Orders

9. Petitioner requests that this Court make orders regarding both legal custody and physical custody of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.

10. Legal Custody. Petitioner requests that the Court award joint legal custody of both minor children to Petitioner and Respondent, with the following modification: Petitioner requests that the Court award tie-breaking decision-making authority to Petitioner with respect to all educational decisions affecting the minor children, including but not limited to decisions regarding school enrollment, school selection, educational programs, tutoring, academic interventions, and related educational matters. This request is made on the grounds that Petitioner has been the primary decision-maker regarding the children's education throughout their lives, including researching and selecting Ridgeview Academy, completing all enrollment applications and forms, managing the children's academic progress, communicating with teachers and school administrators, and attending parent-teacher conferences. Petitioner has demonstrated the ability and willingness to consult meaningfully with Respondent regarding educational decisions; however, tie-breaking authority is necessary to avoid impasse on critical decisions affecting the children's schooling, particularly in light of the parties' inability to reach agreement on a formal custody arrangement to date.

11. With respect to all other major life decisions concerning the minor children — including but not limited to decisions regarding healthcare, mental health treatment, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities — Petitioner requests that the parties share equal joint legal custody authority, with an obligation to consult in good faith and to attempt to reach agreement before either parent makes unilateral decisions.

12. Physical Custody. Petitioner requests that the Court award joint physical custody of both minor children to Petitioner and Respondent, with the children's primary residence designated as Petitioner's home at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Petitioner's home is the residence in which the children have lived for the majority of the time since the parties' separation, and it is located in close proximity to Ridgeview Academy, where both children are enrolled. The designation of Petitioner's home as the children's primary residence is consistent with the children's established routines, school schedule, and social connections in the Studio City and Sherman Oaks area.

13. Petitioner requests that the Court establish a structured custodial timeshare schedule that reflects the children's need for stability during the school year. In fashioning such a schedule, Petitioner respectfully asks the Court to take into account Respondent's variable and often unpredictable work schedule as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography in the film and television industry. Respondent's work regularly requires extended periods of on-location travel, sometimes lasting several weeks at a time. A structured schedule with appropriate provisions for Respondent's work-related absences will best serve the children's interests in consistency and predictability.

B. Visitation / Parenting Time Schedule

14. Petitioner requests that the Court establish a regular school-year parenting time schedule that allocates a majority of overnights to Petitioner, consistent with the children's historical caregiving arrangements and the practical realities of the parties' respective work obligations. Petitioner proposes that Respondent have parenting time on alternating weekends (Friday after school or 3:00 p.m. through Monday morning school drop-off) and one midweek overnight (Wednesday after school or 3:00 p.m. through Thursday morning school drop-off) during weeks when Respondent does not have a weekend, or such other schedule as the Court deems appropriate.

15. Petitioner further requests that the Court establish an equitable summer schedule that provides both parents with extended uninterrupted time with the children during the summer recess, while preserving the children's enrollment in any summer programs at Ridgeview Academy or other agreed-upon activities.

16. Petitioner requests that the Court include specific provisions addressing the following:

(a) Holiday and Vacation Rotation. The Court should establish a detailed holiday rotation schedule, alternating major holidays (including but not limited to Thanksgiving, winter break, spring break, Independence Day, Labor Day, and Memorial Day) between the parties on an annual or biannual basis. Each parent should have the children on that parent's birthday and on Mother's Day or Father's Day, as applicable.

(b) Travel Notice Requirements. Each parent should be required to provide the other parent with written notice of any intended travel with the children outside of Los Angeles County no fewer than fourteen (14) calendar days in advance of such travel, including itinerary details, contact information, and destination addresses.

(c) On-Location Work Provisions. The parenting plan should include specific provisions addressing periods when either parent must travel for on-location work exceeding fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days. In such circumstances, the traveling parent should be required to provide the other parent with at least twenty-one (21) calendar days' advance written notice, and the non-traveling parent should have the right of first refusal to care for the children during the traveling parent's absence, in lieu of any third-party caregiver or family member. Upon the traveling parent's return, reasonable make-up parenting time should be available, subject to the children's school schedule and best interests.

C. Child Support Orders

17. Petitioner requests that this Court order Respondent to pay child support in accordance with the California statewide uniform child support guidelines set forth in California Family Code sections 4050 through 4076. A guideline calculation should be performed based on the parties' respective incomes and the custodial timeshare ultimately ordered by the Court.

18. Petitioner's Income. Petitioner is employed as Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., with offices located at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. Petitioner's total annual compensation is approximately Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000.00), comprising the following components:

(a) Base salary of Four Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($485,000.00) per year;

(b) Average annual discretionary bonus of approximately Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00), based on the three most recent fiscal years; and

(c) Annual vesting of restricted stock units ("RSUs") with an approximate annual value of One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000.00), based on current vesting schedules and share prices.

19. Petitioner's estimated gross monthly income is approximately Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($72,500.00). Full details of Petitioner's income, deductions, assets, and expenses are set forth in Petitioner's Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150), filed concurrently herewith.

20. Respondent's Income. Respondent works as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography on feature films and episodic television productions. Respondent does not receive a regular salary. Rather, he is engaged on a project-by-project basis and his income varies substantially from year to year and from month to month. Respondent operates through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Based upon information and belief, and based upon Petitioner's review of financial disclosures produced during the dissolution proceedings and publicly available information regarding industry compensation, Respondent's three-year average annual gross income is approximately Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000.00), yielding an imputed gross monthly income of approximately Twenty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($28,333.00).

21. Petitioner requests that the Court impute income to Respondent based on his earning capacity and historical earnings, consistent with California Family Code section 4058(b). Respondent is an experienced and highly skilled cinematographer who has worked on multiple major studio and streaming platform productions. His earning capacity is well-established. Given the variable nature of Respondent's freelance income and the use of a loan-out entity through which income may be deferred, retained, or otherwise managed, imputation of income based on earning capacity and historical earnings is necessary to ensure an accurate and fair child support calculation.

22. To that end, Petitioner has retained Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, a forensic accountant and partner at Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, to conduct a comprehensive forensic income analysis of Respondent's freelance earnings, loan-out entity income, and related financial matters for purposes of the child support calculation. Mr. Yamamoto's analysis will include a review of Respondent's personal and business tax returns, bank statements, loan-out entity financial records, and contracts or deal memoranda for Respondent's film and television engagements. Petitioner will present Mr. Yamamoto's analysis and, if necessary, his testimony, to the Court at or before the hearing on this Request for Order.

D. Education Cost-Sharing

23. Petitioner requests that the Court allocate the costs of the children's private school tuition at Ridgeview Academy between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes, or in such other proportion as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. The total combined annual tuition for both children at Ridgeview Academy is Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($59,200.00), comprised of Thirty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($32,400.00) for Isabela's first-grade program and Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($26,800.00) for Mateo's pre-kindergarten program.

24. Both children have been enrolled at Ridgeview Academy since the earliest age of enrollment eligibility. Both parties agreed to the children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy during the domestic partnership. Respondent has historically contributed to tuition costs, and Petitioner submits that it is in the children's best interests to remain enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, where they have established strong academic foundations, social relationships, and a sense of community and belonging.

25. Private school tuition constitutes an add-on child care cost that may be ordered as an addition to the guideline child support amount pursuant to Family Code section 4062(b). Petitioner requests that the Court exercise its discretion to order that these costs be shared between the parties, with each party responsible for a pro rata share based on each party's percentage of the parties' combined gross income.

E. Healthcare Coverage

26. Petitioner requests that the Court order that both minor children remain enrolled in Petitioner's employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. The plan is carried by Veridian Health Insurance Co. and provides comprehensive medical, dental, vision, and prescription drug coverage. The children have been enrolled on Petitioner's plan since birth, and their current pediatrician, dentist, and other healthcare providers are all within the plan's network.

27. Petitioner further requests that the Court order that all reasonable and necessary unreimbursed healthcare expenses for the minor children — including but not limited to medical, dental, orthodontic, optometric, psychological, psychiatric, and other mental health expenses — be shared between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes, or in such other proportion as the Court deems just and appropriate. Each party should be required to provide the other party with documentation of any unreimbursed healthcare expense within thirty (30) calendar days of incurring such expense, and the reimbursing party should be required to pay his or her pro rata share within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving such documentation.

F. Additional Relief

28. Petitioner requests such other and further orders as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances, including but not limited to orders regarding the exchange of financial information, orders regarding the production of documents necessary for the child support calculation, and any other orders necessary to protect the best interests of the minor children.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST

A. History of the Domestic Partnership and the Children

29. Petitioner and Respondent registered their domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015. The parties resided together as domestic partners at various residences in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, California throughout the duration of their partnership.

30. The parties are the parents of two minor children: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019. Both children were born during the parties' domestic partnership and both children are the biological children of both Petitioner and Respondent.

31. On July 8, 2022, Petitioner filed the Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership that initiated this action. The parties separated on or about June 15, 2022. The dissolution proceeding was resolved on an expedited basis, and a Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered on November 3, 2022. As noted above, the Judgment resolved property and obligation issues but expressly reserved jurisdiction over all custody, visitation, and child support matters.

B. Post-Dissolution Informal Arrangement and Its Breakdown

32. Following the entry of the Dissolution Judgment, the parties did not seek court orders regarding custody, visitation, or child support. Instead, the children split time between both parents' homes under an informal, unwritten arrangement. Under this arrangement, the children generally spent weekday nights with Petitioner — given Petitioner's proximity to Ridgeview Academy and her established weekday routine with the children — and alternating weekends with Respondent, with additional midweek time with Respondent when his work schedule permitted.

33. The informal arrangement functioned adequately through the fall and winter of 2022 and early months of 2023, though it was not without difficulty. The arrangement required frequent, sometimes daily, communication between the parties regarding scheduling, and it was inherently dependent on Respondent's fluctuating work commitments. On multiple occasions, Respondent was required to cancel or modify his planned time with the children on short notice due to last-minute scheduling changes associated with his film and television work.

34. In approximately late February 2023, Respondent accepted a seven-week engagement as the director of photography on a feature film production shooting on location in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Respondent departed for Vancouver on or about March 6, 2023, and did not return to Los Angeles until approximately April 22, 2023. Respondent provided Petitioner with less than two weeks' advance notice of his departure and did not propose or implement any alternative caregiving arrangement for the children during his absence.

35. During the entirety of Respondent's seven-week absence, the full burden of day-to-day caregiving for both children fell exclusively upon Petitioner. Petitioner managed all school drop-offs and pick-ups, all extracurricular activities, all medical and dental appointments, all meals, all homework assistance, all bedtime routines, and all weekend care for both children, in addition to her demanding full-time employment as a senior executive at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc.

36. The disruption caused by Respondent's unplanned extended absence from Los Angeles was significant. It disrupted the children's routine and their expectation of regular time with both parents. It placed an extraordinary caregiving burden on Petitioner. And it demonstrated, conclusively, that the informal arrangement between the parties is insufficient to protect the children's need for stability, consistency, and the assurance that both parents will be available and present.

37. The breakdown of the informal arrangement is the primary impetus for this Request for Order. A formal, court-ordered custody and visitation schedule — with specific provisions addressing work-related travel and the right of first refusal — is necessary to prevent future disruptions and to ensure that the children's best interests are protected.

C. Petitioner's Role as Primary Caregiver

38. Petitioner has been the children's primary caregiver throughout their lives. From birth, Petitioner has been the parent primarily responsible for the children's day-to-day needs, including feeding, bathing, dressing, school preparation, homework supervision, medical care, and bedtime routines. While Respondent has been a loving and involved parent when present and available, his work as a freelance cinematographer has frequently taken him away from the family home for extended periods, leaving Petitioner as the sole caregiver.

39. Petitioner's work schedule, though demanding, is stable and predictable. Petitioner's office at the headquarters of Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. is located at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505, approximately twenty (20) minutes from both the children's school and Petitioner's home. Petitioner's typical workday permits her to manage school drop-off in the morning and to be available for pick-up in the late afternoon, supplemented by an after-school program at Ridgeview Academy on certain days. When Petitioner's work requires evening or weekend commitments — such as screenings, industry events, or production milestones — she arranges childcare in advance through a network of trusted caregivers.

40. Petitioner manages all aspects of the children's enrollment and participation at Ridgeview Academy. Petitioner completed the applications for both children's enrollment, attends all parent-teacher conferences, communicates regularly with teachers and school administrators, volunteers for school events, and monitors the children's academic progress. Petitioner also manages the children's medical appointments, including regular check-ups with their pediatrician, dental visits, and Isabela's ongoing care with a pediatric allergist for her food allergies.

41. Petitioner enrolls and coordinates both children's extracurricular activities, including Isabela's Saturday morning gymnastics class, Isabela's weekly piano lessons, and Mateo's participation in a toddler soccer program. These activities take place in the Studio City and Sherman Oaks area, in proximity to both the children's school and Petitioner's home.

D. Respondent's Work Schedule and Residence

42. Respondent is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography who works on feature films and episodic television productions. He is a skilled professional with credits on several critically recognized productions. However, the nature of his work is inherently variable and unpredictable. Feature film productions may require weeks or months of on-location shooting in distant cities or countries. Episodic television work, while sometimes more geographically stable, often involves long and irregular daily hours, including night shoots, weekend work, and holiday production schedules.

43. Respondent operates his freelance business through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Petitioner is informed and believes that Respondent receives payment for his professional services through this entity, and that the entity is used to manage income, expenses, and tax obligations associated with Respondent's freelance work.

44. Respondent currently resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602. Respondent's residence is an apartment in a multi-unit building. While the residence is adequate for the children's visits, it is located approximately 3.2 miles from Petitioner's home and slightly farther from Ridgeview Academy than Petitioner's home.

E. Children's Best Interests

45. Both children are thriving at Ridgeview Academy and have established strong social and educational routines in the Sherman Oaks and Studio City area. Isabela is performing well in first grade and has developed close friendships with her classmates. She enjoys her gymnastics and piano lessons and is well-adjusted socially and emotionally. Mateo is flourishing in the pre-kindergarten program, where he is developing early literacy and social skills and has bonded with his teachers and peers.

46. Stability and consistency in the children's daily schedule, schooling, and living arrangements are paramount to their well-being. Both children benefit from a predictable routine that includes regular wake-up and bedtime schedules, consistent school drop-off and pick-up times, and reliable access to their extracurricular activities and social networks. A structured custody and visitation schedule, anchored by the children's primary residence at Petitioner's home in Studio City, will best serve these needs.

47. Both Petitioner and Respondent love their children and are devoted to their well-being. Petitioner does not seek to exclude Respondent from the children's lives. To the contrary, Petitioner recognizes the importance of the children's relationship with Respondent and seeks an order that facilitates frequent and continuing contact with both parents — while providing the structure and predictability that the informal arrangement has failed to deliver.

48. The orders requested herein serve the best interests of the minor children as that standard is defined under California Family Code section 3011, taking into account the health, safety, and welfare of the children; each parent's ability to provide a stable and nurturing environment; the children's established routines and relationships; the nature and amount of contact with both parents; and the practical realities of the parties' respective work obligations and living arrangements.

V. LEGAL BASIS

A. Custody — Best Interests Standard

49. California Family Code section 3011 provides that, in making a determination of the best interests of the child for purposes of custody and visitation orders, the Court shall consider, among any other factors it finds relevant, the following: (a) the health, safety, and welfare of the child; (b) any history of abuse by one parent or any other person seeking custody against any child to whom the parent is related or with whom the parent has had a caregiving relationship, or against the other parent; (c) the nature and amount of contact with both parents; and (d) the habitual or continual use of alcohol or controlled substances by either parent. Petitioner is not aware of any history of abuse or substance abuse by either party. The controlling considerations in this matter are the health, safety, and welfare of the children and the nature and amount of contact with both parents.

50. California Family Code section 3020, subdivision (b), establishes the public policy of the State of California to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or dissolve their relationship, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child-rearing in the best interests of the child, except where such contact would not be in the best interests of the child, as provided in section 3011. The orders requested herein are fully consistent with this policy.

51. California Family Code section 3040 establishes the order of preference for custody awards. Subdivision (a)(1) provides that custody should be granted to both parents jointly or to either parent, in accordance with the best interests of the child. There is no presumption in favor of or against joint custody. Here, Petitioner seeks joint legal and joint physical custody, with a primary residence designation and structured timeshare schedule that reflects the practical circumstances of the parties and the children's needs.

52. California Family Code section 3022 provides that the Court has continuing jurisdiction to modify custody orders at any time it determines that a modification is in the best interests of the child. Because no custody orders have yet been entered in this matter, the Court is making an initial custody determination, and the standard is the best interests of the children under sections 3011 and 3020.

B. Child Support — Guideline Calculation

53. California Family Code sections 4050 through 4076 establish the statewide uniform guideline for the determination of child support obligations. Family Code section 4053 sets forth the principles underlying the guideline, including the principles that a parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life; that both parents are mutually responsible for the support of their children; that each parent should pay for the support of the children according to his or her ability; and that the guideline is intended to be presumptively correct.

54. Family Code section 4055 provides the algebraic formula for calculating guideline child support, which takes into account the parties' respective net disposable incomes and the percentage of time each parent has primary physical responsibility for the children (the "custodial timeshare"). Petitioner requests that the Court calculate guideline child support based on the parties' incomes and the custodial timeshare established by the Court's custody and visitation order.

55. Family Code section 4058(a) defines "annual gross income" for purposes of the guideline calculation to include income from whatever source derived, including but not limited to wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, rents, dividends, interest, and income from self-employment. Section 4058(b) provides that the Court may, in its discretion, consider the earning capacity of a parent in lieu of the parent's income, consistent with the best interests of the children. This provision is particularly applicable where, as here, one parent is self-employed, has variable income, and operates through a loan-out entity that may obscure or defer the receipt of income.

56. Petitioner submits that imputation of income to Respondent based on his earning capacity and historical earnings is necessary and appropriate in this case. Respondent is an established professional in his field. His three-year average annual income of approximately $340,000.00 reflects his demonstrated earning capacity. The use of a loan-out entity — Medrano Visuals, LLC — to receive, manage, and disburse Respondent's professional income adds complexity to the income analysis and underscores the need for the forensic income analysis being prepared by Mr. Yamamoto.

57. Family Code section 4062 authorizes the Court to order additional child support for costs related to the children's health care and child care, including the reasonable costs of managing the children's educational needs. Private school tuition constitutes an add-on cost under section 4062(b), which the Court may, in its discretion, order to be shared between the parties.

C. Continuing Jurisdiction

58. As set forth above, the Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership entered on November 3, 2022, expressly reserved jurisdiction over all issues relating to the custody, visitation, and child support of the minor children. This Court has continuing jurisdiction to enter the orders requested herein pursuant to California Family Code sections 3022 (continuing jurisdiction over custody), 4009 (continuing jurisdiction over child support), and 3400 et seq. (UCCJEA — California as the home state of the children).

VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND DECLARATIONS

59. This Request for Order is supported by the following documents, each of which is filed concurrently herewith or will be presented to the Court at or before the hearing:

(a) The Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca, filed concurrently herewith, which sets forth under penalty of perjury the factual basis for the orders requested in this Request for Order, including detailed information regarding the children's living arrangements, school enrollment, extracurricular activities, health care, the parties' respective caregiving roles, the breakdown of the informal custody arrangement, and the reasons why formal court orders are necessary to protect the children's best interests;

(b) The Income and Expense Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca (Judicial Council Form FL-150), filed concurrently herewith, which sets forth Petitioner's income, deductions, assets, expenses, and other financial information necessary for the child support calculation; and

(c) Such further declarations, exhibits, evidence, and testimony as may be presented at or before the hearing on this matter, including but not limited to the forensic income analysis prepared by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, and any responsive or supplemental declarations necessitated by Respondent's opposition, if any.

VII. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY (PENDENTE LITE) ORDERS

60. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court issue temporary orders regarding custody and visitation, effective immediately or as soon as practicable, pending the final hearing and resolution of the issues raised in this Request for Order. Temporary orders are necessary to provide the children with a structured and stable schedule during the pendency of this matter and to prevent further disruptions of the type that occurred during Respondent's seven-week absence in March and April 2023.

61. Petitioner proposes the following temporary arrangements, pending the Court's final determination:

(a) Temporary Custodial Timeshare. Petitioner proposes a temporary custodial timeshare of approximately sixty percent (60%) Petitioner / forty percent (40%) Respondent during the school year. This allocation is consistent with the children's historical caregiving arrangements and current school enrollment, and it reflects the practical reality that the children spend the majority of school nights at Petitioner's home.

(b) Primary Residence. The children's primary residence should be designated as Petitioner's home at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604, on a temporary basis pending the final hearing.

(c) Travel Notice. On a temporary basis, each parent should be required to provide the other parent with at least fourteen (14) calendar days' advance written notice of any out-of-town travel exceeding seven (7) consecutive days, and the non-traveling parent should have the right of first refusal to care for the children during the traveling parent's absence.

(d) Child Support. Petitioner requests that the Court issue a temporary child support order based on the guideline calculation, using the income figures set forth herein, pending the completion of the forensic income analysis and the final hearing.

62. The issuance of temporary orders will serve the children's best interests by providing them with the stability and predictability they need during what is inherently a transitional period. Temporary orders will also provide a framework for the parties' co-parenting relationship and reduce the potential for conflict arising from the absence of clear expectations and obligations.

VIII. PROOF OF SERVICE / NOTICE

63. Respondent has been served with notice of this Request for Order and all supporting documents filed concurrently herewith. Service has been effectuated through Respondent's counsel of record in this action:

Gwendolyn R. Kwan (State Bar No. 218453) Benjamin T. Okafor (State Bar No. 312776) KWAN, DELACROIX & SAMUELS LLP 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700 Burbank, California 91505

64. A Proof of Service by first-class mail and electronic service, executed by a member of the staff of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, is filed concurrently herewith.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca respectfully requests that this Court grant this Request for Order and enter the custody, visitation, and child support orders described herein, together with such other and further orders as the Court deems just and proper to protect the best interests of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.

Dated: May 2, 2023

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Devon Archer (State Bar No. 284519) Attorney for Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA

777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 688-7200 Facsimile: (213) 688-7201

VERIFICATION

I, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, am the Petitioner in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing Request for Order Re: Child Custody, Visitation, and Child Support and know its contents.

The facts stated in the foregoing Request for Order are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I 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 Petitioner

In re the Domestic Partnership of:	Case No. 22STFL09847
MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA,	REQUEST FOR ORDER RE:

CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION,

Petitioner,	AND CHILD SUPPORT
and	[Judicial Council Form FL-300]
RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO,	Hearing Date: To Be Set by the Court

Hearing Time: To Be Set by the Court

Respondent.

Devon Archer (State Bar No. 284519) Priya Anand (State Bar No. 261087) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 688-7200 Facsimile: (213) 688-7201
Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com
Email: panand@calderwoodharkness.com
Attorneys for Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION, AND CHILD SUPPORT
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA ("Petitioner") hereby respectfully requests that this Court issue orders regarding child custody, visitation (parenting time), and child support concerning the parties' two minor children, ISABELA LUZ FONSECA-MEDRANO and MATEO ELÍAS FONSECA-MEDRANO, as more fully set forth below. This Request for Order is filed pursuant to California Family Code sections 3010 et seq., 3020 et seq., 4050 et seq., and California Rules of Court, rule 5.92, and is made on the grounds that no custody, visitation, or child support orders have been entered in this matter, that the parties' informal post-dissolution arrangement has proven inadequate to protect the children's best interests, and that court orders are necessary to ensure the stability, health, safety, and welfare of the minor children.
This Request for Order is based upon this memorandum, the concurrently filed Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca, the concurrently filed Income and Expense Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca (Judicial Council Form FL-150), the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing on this matter.
I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND JURISDICTIONAL BASIS
1. Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano ("Respondent") are former registered domestic partners in the State of California. The parties registered their domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015, under Secretary of State File No. DP-2015-038741.
2. On July 8, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership in this Court, commencing the action styled In re the Domestic Partnership of Fonseca and Medrano, Case No. 22STFL09847.
3. A Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered by this Court on November 3, 2022. The Judgment resolved all issues pertaining to the division of community property and community obligations. However, the Judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction over all issues relating to the custody, visitation, and child support of the parties' two minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.
4. No custody, visitation, or child support orders have been entered in this matter to date. Since the entry of the Dissolution Judgment, the parties have been operating under an informal, unwritten arrangement regarding the children's time with each parent. As set forth more fully below, this informal arrangement has proven insufficient to protect the children's best interests.
5. This Court has continuing subject matter jurisdiction over custody, visitation, and child support pursuant to California Family Code sections 3022 and 4009. The State of California is the home state of both minor children within the meaning of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"), Family Code sections 3400 et seq. Both children have resided in California since birth and currently reside within the County of Los Angeles. Both parents reside within Los Angeles County. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to enter the orders requested herein.
II. IDENTIFICATION OF MINOR CHILDREN
6. The parties are the parents of two minor children:
(a) Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, currently six (6) years of age. Isabela is currently enrolled in the first grade at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. Annual tuition for Isabela's first-grade program is Thirty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($32,400.00).
(b) Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019, currently three (3) years of age. Mateo is currently enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program at Ridgeview Academy at the same campus address. Annual tuition for Mateo's pre-kindergarten program is Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($26,800.00).
7. Both Isabela and Mateo are the biological children of Petitioner and Respondent. There are no other children of the parties' domestic partnership.
8. At the time of this filing, both children reside primarily with Petitioner at her home located at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Respondent resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602. The parties' residences are located approximately 3.2 miles apart.
III. ORDERS REQUESTED
Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court enter the following orders:
A. Child Custody Orders
9. Petitioner requests that this Court make orders regarding both legal custody and physical custody of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.
10. Legal Custody. Petitioner requests that the Court award joint legal custody of both minor children to Petitioner and Respondent, with the following modification: Petitioner requests that the Court award tie-breaking decision-making authority to Petitioner with respect to all educational decisions affecting the minor children, including but not limited to decisions regarding school enrollment, school selection, educational programs, tutoring, academic interventions, and related educational matters. This request is made on the grounds that Petitioner has been the primary decision-maker regarding the children's education throughout their lives, including researching and selecting Ridgeview Academy, completing all enrollment applications and forms, managing the children's academic progress, communicating with teachers and school administrators, and attending parent-teacher conferences. Petitioner has demonstrated the ability and willingness to consult meaningfully with Respondent regarding educational decisions; however, tie-breaking authority is necessary to avoid impasse on critical decisions affecting the children's schooling, particularly in light of the parties' inability to reach agreement on a formal custody arrangement to date.
11. With respect to all other major life decisions concerning the minor children — including but not limited to decisions regarding healthcare, mental health treatment, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities — Petitioner requests that the parties share equal joint legal custody authority, with an obligation to consult in good faith and to attempt to reach agreement before either parent makes unilateral decisions.
12. Physical Custody. Petitioner requests that the Court award joint physical custody of both minor children to Petitioner and Respondent, with the children's primary residence designated as Petitioner's home at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Petitioner's home is the residence in which the children have lived for the majority of the time since the parties' separation, and it is located in close proximity to Ridgeview Academy, where both children are enrolled. The designation of Petitioner's home as the children's primary residence is consistent with the children's established routines, school schedule, and social connections in the Studio City and Sherman Oaks area.
13. Petitioner requests that the Court establish a structured custodial timeshare schedule that reflects the children's need for stability during the school year. In fashioning such a schedule, Petitioner respectfully asks the Court to take into account Respondent's variable and often unpredictable work schedule as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography in the film and television industry. Respondent's work regularly requires extended periods of on-location travel, sometimes lasting several weeks at a time. A structured schedule with appropriate provisions for Respondent's work-related absences will best serve the children's interests in consistency and predictability.
B. Visitation / Parenting Time Schedule
14. Petitioner requests that the Court establish a regular school-year parenting time schedule that allocates a majority of overnights to Petitioner, consistent with the children's historical caregiving arrangements and the practical realities of the parties' respective work obligations. Petitioner proposes that Respondent have parenting time on alternating weekends (Friday after school or 3:00 p.m. through Monday morning school drop-off) and one midweek overnight (Wednesday after school or 3:00 p.m. through Thursday morning school drop-off) during weeks when Respondent does not have a weekend, or such other schedule as the Court deems appropriate.
15. Petitioner further requests that the Court establish an equitable summer schedule that provides both parents with extended uninterrupted time with the children during the summer recess, while preserving the children's enrollment in any summer programs at Ridgeview Academy or other agreed-upon activities.
16. Petitioner requests that the Court include specific provisions addressing the following:
(a) Holiday and Vacation Rotation. The Court should establish a detailed holiday rotation schedule, alternating major holidays (including but not limited to Thanksgiving, winter break, spring break, Independence Day, Labor Day, and Memorial Day) between the parties on an annual or biannual basis. Each parent should have the children on that parent's birthday and on Mother's Day or Father's Day, as applicable.
(b) Travel Notice Requirements. Each parent should be required to provide the other parent with written notice of any intended travel with the children outside of Los Angeles County no fewer than fourteen (14) calendar days in advance of such travel, including itinerary details, contact information, and destination addresses.
(c) On-Location Work Provisions. The parenting plan should include specific provisions addressing periods when either parent must travel for on-location work exceeding fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days. In such circumstances, the traveling parent should be required to provide the other parent with at least twenty-one (21) calendar days' advance written notice, and the non-traveling parent should have the right of first refusal to care for the children during the traveling parent's absence, in lieu of any third-party caregiver or family member. Upon the traveling parent's return, reasonable make-up parenting time should be available, subject to the children's school schedule and best interests.
C. Child Support Orders
17. Petitioner requests that this Court order Respondent to pay child support in accordance with the California statewide uniform child support guidelines set forth in California Family Code sections 4050 through 4076. A guideline calculation should be performed based on the parties' respective incomes and the custodial timeshare ultimately ordered by the Court.
18. Petitioner's Income. Petitioner is employed as Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., with offices located at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. Petitioner's total annual compensation is approximately Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000.00), comprising the following components:
(a) Base salary of Four Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($485,000.00) per year;
(b) Average annual discretionary bonus of approximately Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000.00), based on the three most recent fiscal years; and
(c) Annual vesting of restricted stock units ("RSUs") with an approximate annual value of One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000.00), based on current vesting schedules and share prices.
19. Petitioner's estimated gross monthly income is approximately Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($72,500.00). Full details of Petitioner's income, deductions, assets, and expenses are set forth in Petitioner's Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150), filed concurrently herewith.
20. Respondent's Income. Respondent works as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography on feature films and episodic television productions. Respondent does not receive a regular salary. Rather, he is engaged on a project-by-project basis and his income varies substantially from year to year and from month to month. Respondent operates through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Based upon information and belief, and based upon Petitioner's review of financial disclosures produced during the dissolution proceedings and publicly available information regarding industry compensation, Respondent's three-year average annual gross income is approximately Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000.00), yielding an imputed gross monthly income of approximately Twenty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($28,333.00).
21. Petitioner requests that the Court impute income to Respondent based on his earning capacity and historical earnings, consistent with California Family Code section 4058(b). Respondent is an experienced and highly skilled cinematographer who has worked on multiple major studio and streaming platform productions. His earning capacity is well-established. Given the variable nature of Respondent's freelance income and the use of a loan-out entity through which income may be deferred, retained, or otherwise managed, imputation of income based on earning capacity and historical earnings is necessary to ensure an accurate and fair child support calculation.
22. To that end, Petitioner has retained Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, a forensic accountant and partner at Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, to conduct a comprehensive forensic income analysis of Respondent's freelance earnings, loan-out entity income, and related financial matters for purposes of the child support calculation. Mr. Yamamoto's analysis will include a review of Respondent's personal and business tax returns, bank statements, loan-out entity financial records, and contracts or deal memoranda for Respondent's film and television engagements. Petitioner will present Mr. Yamamoto's analysis and, if necessary, his testimony, to the Court at or before the hearing on this Request for Order.
D. Education Cost-Sharing
23. Petitioner requests that the Court allocate the costs of the children's private school tuition at Ridgeview Academy between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes, or in such other proportion as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. The total combined annual tuition for both children at Ridgeview Academy is Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($59,200.00), comprised of Thirty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($32,400.00) for Isabela's first-grade program and Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($26,800.00) for Mateo's pre-kindergarten program.
24. Both children have been enrolled at Ridgeview Academy since the earliest age of enrollment eligibility. Both parties agreed to the children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy during the domestic partnership. Respondent has historically contributed to tuition costs, and Petitioner submits that it is in the children's best interests to remain enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, where they have established strong academic foundations, social relationships, and a sense of community and belonging.
25. Private school tuition constitutes an add-on child care cost that may be ordered as an addition to the guideline child support amount pursuant to Family Code section 4062(b). Petitioner requests that the Court exercise its discretion to order that these costs be shared between the parties, with each party responsible for a pro rata share based on each party's percentage of the parties' combined gross income.
E. Healthcare Coverage
26. Petitioner requests that the Court order that both minor children remain enrolled in Petitioner's employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. The plan is carried by Veridian Health Insurance Co. and provides comprehensive medical, dental, vision, and prescription drug coverage. The children have been enrolled on Petitioner's plan since birth, and their current pediatrician, dentist, and other healthcare providers are all within the plan's network.
27. Petitioner further requests that the Court order that all reasonable and necessary unreimbursed healthcare expenses for the minor children — including but not limited to medical, dental, orthodontic, optometric, psychological, psychiatric, and other mental health expenses — be shared between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes, or in such other proportion as the Court deems just and appropriate. Each party should be required to provide the other party with documentation of any unreimbursed healthcare expense within thirty (30) calendar days of incurring such expense, and the reimbursing party should be required to pay his or her pro rata share within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving such documentation.
F. Additional Relief
28. Petitioner requests such other and further orders as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances, including but not limited to orders regarding the exchange of financial information, orders regarding the production of documents necessary for the child support calculation, and any other orders necessary to protect the best interests of the minor children.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST
A. History of the Domestic Partnership and the Children
29. Petitioner and Respondent registered their domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015. The parties resided together as domestic partners at various residences in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, California throughout the duration of their partnership.
30. The parties are the parents of two minor children: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019. Both children were born during the parties' domestic partnership and both children are the biological children of both Petitioner and Respondent.
31. On July 8, 2022, Petitioner filed the Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership that initiated this action. The parties separated on or about June 15, 2022. The dissolution proceeding was resolved on an expedited basis, and a Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered on November 3, 2022. As noted above, the Judgment resolved property and obligation issues but expressly reserved jurisdiction over all custody, visitation, and child support matters.
B. Post-Dissolution Informal Arrangement and Its Breakdown
32. Following the entry of the Dissolution Judgment, the parties did not seek court orders regarding custody, visitation, or child support. Instead, the children split time between both parents' homes under an informal, unwritten arrangement. Under this arrangement, the children generally spent weekday nights with Petitioner — given Petitioner's proximity to Ridgeview Academy and her established weekday routine with the children — and alternating weekends with Respondent, with additional midweek time with Respondent when his work schedule permitted.
33. The informal arrangement functioned adequately through the fall and winter of 2022 and early months of 2023, though it was not without difficulty. The arrangement required frequent, sometimes daily, communication between the parties regarding scheduling, and it was inherently dependent on Respondent's fluctuating work commitments. On multiple occasions, Respondent was required to cancel or modify his planned time with the children on short notice due to last-minute scheduling changes associated with his film and television work.
34. In approximately late February 2023, Respondent accepted a seven-week engagement as the director of photography on a feature film production shooting on location in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Respondent departed for Vancouver on or about March 6, 2023, and did not return to Los Angeles until approximately April 22, 2023. Respondent provided Petitioner with less than two weeks' advance notice of his departure and did not propose or implement any alternative caregiving arrangement for the children during his absence.
35. During the entirety of Respondent's seven-week absence, the full burden of day-to-day caregiving for both children fell exclusively upon Petitioner. Petitioner managed all school drop-offs and pick-ups, all extracurricular activities, all medical and dental appointments, all meals, all homework assistance, all bedtime routines, and all weekend care for both children, in addition to her demanding full-time employment as a senior executive at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc.
36. The disruption caused by Respondent's unplanned extended absence from Los Angeles was significant. It disrupted the children's routine and their expectation of regular time with both parents. It placed an extraordinary caregiving burden on Petitioner. And it demonstrated, conclusively, that the informal arrangement between the parties is insufficient to protect the children's need for stability, consistency, and the assurance that both parents will be available and present.
37. The breakdown of the informal arrangement is the primary impetus for this Request for Order. A formal, court-ordered custody and visitation schedule — with specific provisions addressing work-related travel and the right of first refusal — is necessary to prevent future disruptions and to ensure that the children's best interests are protected.
C. Petitioner's Role as Primary Caregiver
38. Petitioner has been the children's primary caregiver throughout their lives. From birth, Petitioner has been the parent primarily responsible for the children's day-to-day needs, including feeding, bathing, dressing, school preparation, homework supervision, medical care, and bedtime routines. While Respondent has been a loving and involved parent when present and available, his work as a freelance cinematographer has frequently taken him away from the family home for extended periods, leaving Petitioner as the sole caregiver.
39. Petitioner's work schedule, though demanding, is stable and predictable. Petitioner's office at the headquarters of Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. is located at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505, approximately twenty (20) minutes from both the children's school and Petitioner's home. Petitioner's typical workday permits her to manage school drop-off in the morning and to be available for pick-up in the late afternoon, supplemented by an after-school program at Ridgeview Academy on certain days. When Petitioner's work requires evening or weekend commitments — such as screenings, industry events, or production milestones — she arranges childcare in advance through a network of trusted caregivers.
40. Petitioner manages all aspects of the children's enrollment and participation at Ridgeview Academy. Petitioner completed the applications for both children's enrollment, attends all parent-teacher conferences, communicates regularly with teachers and school administrators, volunteers for school events, and monitors the children's academic progress. Petitioner also manages the children's medical appointments, including regular check-ups with their pediatrician, dental visits, and Isabela's ongoing care with a pediatric allergist for her food allergies.
41. Petitioner enrolls and coordinates both children's extracurricular activities, including Isabela's Saturday morning gymnastics class, Isabela's weekly piano lessons, and Mateo's participation in a toddler soccer program. These activities take place in the Studio City and Sherman Oaks area, in proximity to both the children's school and Petitioner's home.
D. Respondent's Work Schedule and Residence
42. Respondent is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography who works on feature films and episodic television productions. He is a skilled professional with credits on several critically recognized productions. However, the nature of his work is inherently variable and unpredictable. Feature film productions may require weeks or months of on-location shooting in distant cities or countries. Episodic television work, while sometimes more geographically stable, often involves long and irregular daily hours, including night shoots, weekend work, and holiday production schedules.
43. Respondent operates his freelance business through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Petitioner is informed and believes that Respondent receives payment for his professional services through this entity, and that the entity is used to manage income, expenses, and tax obligations associated with Respondent's freelance work.
44. Respondent currently resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602. Respondent's residence is an apartment in a multi-unit building. While the residence is adequate for the children's visits, it is located approximately 3.2 miles from Petitioner's home and slightly farther from Ridgeview Academy than Petitioner's home.
E. Children's Best Interests
45. Both children are thriving at Ridgeview Academy and have established strong social and educational routines in the Sherman Oaks and Studio City area. Isabela is performing well in first grade and has developed close friendships with her classmates. She enjoys her gymnastics and piano lessons and is well-adjusted socially and emotionally. Mateo is flourishing in the pre-kindergarten program, where he is developing early literacy and social skills and has bonded with his teachers and peers.
46. Stability and consistency in the children's daily schedule, schooling, and living arrangements are paramount to their well-being. Both children benefit from a predictable routine that includes regular wake-up and bedtime schedules, consistent school drop-off and pick-up times, and reliable access to their extracurricular activities and social networks. A structured custody and visitation schedule, anchored by the children's primary residence at Petitioner's home in Studio City, will best serve these needs.
47. Both Petitioner and Respondent love their children and are devoted to their well-being. Petitioner does not seek to exclude Respondent from the children's lives. To the contrary, Petitioner recognizes the importance of the children's relationship with Respondent and seeks an order that facilitates frequent and continuing contact with both parents — while providing the structure and predictability that the informal arrangement has failed to deliver.
48. The orders requested herein serve the best interests of the minor children as that standard is defined under California Family Code section 3011, taking into account the health, safety, and welfare of the children; each parent's ability to provide a stable and nurturing environment; the children's established routines and relationships; the nature and amount of contact with both parents; and the practical realities of the parties' respective work obligations and living arrangements.
V. LEGAL BASIS
A. Custody — Best Interests Standard
49. California Family Code section 3011 provides that, in making a determination of the best interests of the child for purposes of custody and visitation orders, the Court shall consider, among any other factors it finds relevant, the following: (a) the health, safety, and welfare of the child; (b) any history of abuse by one parent or any other person seeking custody against any child to whom the parent is related or with whom the parent has had a caregiving relationship, or against the other parent; (c) the nature and amount of contact with both parents; and (d) the habitual or continual use of alcohol or controlled substances by either parent. Petitioner is not aware of any history of abuse or substance abuse by either party. The controlling considerations in this matter are the health, safety, and welfare of the children and the nature and amount of contact with both parents.
50. California Family Code section 3020, subdivision (b), establishes the public policy of the State of California to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or dissolve their relationship, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child-rearing in the best interests of the child, except where such contact would not be in the best interests of the child, as provided in section 3011. The orders requested herein are fully consistent with this policy.
51. California Family Code section 3040 establishes the order of preference for custody awards. Subdivision (a)(1) provides that custody should be granted to both parents jointly or to either parent, in accordance with the best interests of the child. There is no presumption in favor of or against joint custody. Here, Petitioner seeks joint legal and joint physical custody, with a primary residence designation and structured timeshare schedule that reflects the practical circumstances of the parties and the children's needs.
52. California Family Code section 3022 provides that the Court has continuing jurisdiction to modify custody orders at any time it determines that a modification is in the best interests of the child. Because no custody orders have yet been entered in this matter, the Court is making an initial custody determination, and the standard is the best interests of the children under sections 3011 and 3020.
B. Child Support — Guideline Calculation
53. California Family Code sections 4050 through 4076 establish the statewide uniform guideline for the determination of child support obligations. Family Code section 4053 sets forth the principles underlying the guideline, including the principles that a parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life; that both parents are mutually responsible for the support of their children; that each parent should pay for the support of the children according to his or her ability; and that the guideline is intended to be presumptively correct.
54. Family Code section 4055 provides the algebraic formula for calculating guideline child support, which takes into account the parties' respective net disposable incomes and the percentage of time each parent has primary physical responsibility for the children (the "custodial timeshare"). Petitioner requests that the Court calculate guideline child support based on the parties' incomes and the custodial timeshare established by the Court's custody and visitation order.
55. Family Code section 4058(a) defines "annual gross income" for purposes of the guideline calculation to include income from whatever source derived, including but not limited to wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, rents, dividends, interest, and income from self-employment. Section 4058(b) provides that the Court may, in its discretion, consider the earning capacity of a parent in lieu of the parent's income, consistent with the best interests of the children. This provision is particularly applicable where, as here, one parent is self-employed, has variable income, and operates through a loan-out entity that may obscure or defer the receipt of income.
56. Petitioner submits that imputation of income to Respondent based on his earning capacity and historical earnings is necessary and appropriate in this case. Respondent is an established professional in his field. His three-year average annual income of approximately $340,000.00 reflects his demonstrated earning capacity. The use of a loan-out entity — Medrano Visuals, LLC — to receive, manage, and disburse Respondent's professional income adds complexity to the income analysis and underscores the need for the forensic income analysis being prepared by Mr. Yamamoto.
57. Family Code section 4062 authorizes the Court to order additional child support for costs related to the children's health care and child care, including the reasonable costs of managing the children's educational needs. Private school tuition constitutes an add-on cost under section 4062(b), which the Court may, in its discretion, order to be shared between the parties.
C. Continuing Jurisdiction
58. As set forth above, the Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership entered on November 3, 2022, expressly reserved jurisdiction over all issues relating to the custody, visitation, and child support of the minor children. This Court has continuing jurisdiction to enter the orders requested herein pursuant to California Family Code sections 3022 (continuing jurisdiction over custody), 4009 (continuing jurisdiction over child support), and 3400 et seq. (UCCJEA — California as the home state of the children).
VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND DECLARATIONS
59. This Request for Order is supported by the following documents, each of which is filed concurrently herewith or will be presented to the Court at or before the hearing:
(a) The Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca, filed concurrently herewith, which sets forth under penalty of perjury the factual basis for the orders requested in this Request for Order, including detailed information regarding the children's living arrangements, school enrollment, extracurricular activities, health care, the parties' respective caregiving roles, the breakdown of the informal custody arrangement, and the reasons why formal court orders are necessary to protect the children's best interests;
(b) The Income and Expense Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca (Judicial Council Form FL-150), filed concurrently herewith, which sets forth Petitioner's income, deductions, assets, expenses, and other financial information necessary for the child support calculation; and
(c) Such further declarations, exhibits, evidence, and testimony as may be presented at or before the hearing on this matter, including but not limited to the forensic income analysis prepared by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, and any responsive or supplemental declarations necessitated by Respondent's opposition, if any.
VII. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY (PENDENTE LITE) ORDERS
60. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court issue temporary orders regarding custody and visitation, effective immediately or as soon as practicable, pending the final hearing and resolution of the issues raised in this Request for Order. Temporary orders are necessary to provide the children with a structured and stable schedule during the pendency of this matter and to prevent further disruptions of the type that occurred during Respondent's seven-week absence in March and April 2023.
61. Petitioner proposes the following temporary arrangements, pending the Court's final determination:
(a) Temporary Custodial Timeshare. Petitioner proposes a temporary custodial timeshare of approximately sixty percent (60%) Petitioner / forty percent (40%) Respondent during the school year. This allocation is consistent with the children's historical caregiving arrangements and current school enrollment, and it reflects the practical reality that the children spend the majority of school nights at Petitioner's home.
(b) Primary Residence. The children's primary residence should be designated as Petitioner's home at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604, on a temporary basis pending the final hearing.
(c) Travel Notice. On a temporary basis, each parent should be required to provide the other parent with at least fourteen (14) calendar days' advance written notice of any out-of-town travel exceeding seven (7) consecutive days, and the non-traveling parent should have the right of first refusal to care for the children during the traveling parent's absence.
(d) Child Support. Petitioner requests that the Court issue a temporary child support order based on the guideline calculation, using the income figures set forth herein, pending the completion of the forensic income analysis and the final hearing.
62. The issuance of temporary orders will serve the children's best interests by providing them with the stability and predictability they need during what is inherently a transitional period. Temporary orders will also provide a framework for the parties' co-parenting relationship and reduce the potential for conflict arising from the absence of clear expectations and obligations.
VIII. PROOF OF SERVICE / NOTICE
63. Respondent has been served with notice of this Request for Order and all supporting documents filed concurrently herewith. Service has been effectuated through Respondent's counsel of record in this action:
Gwendolyn R. Kwan (State Bar No. 218453) Benjamin T. Okafor (State Bar No. 312776) KWAN, DELACROIX & SAMUELS LLP 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700 Burbank, California 91505
64. A Proof of Service by first-class mail and electronic service, executed by a member of the staff of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, is filed concurrently herewith.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca respectfully requests that this Court grant this Request for Order and enter the custody, visitation, and child support orders described herein, together with such other and further orders as the Court deems just and proper to protect the best interests of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.
Dated: May 2, 2023
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Devon Archer (State Bar No. 284519) Attorney for Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA
777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 688-7200 Facsimile: (213) 688-7201
VERIFICATION
I, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, am the Petitioner in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing Request for Order Re: Child Custody, Visitation, and Child Support and know its contents.
The facts stated in the foregoing Request for Order are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I 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 Petitioner
In re the Domestic Partnership of: | Case No. 22STFL09847
MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA, | REQUEST FOR ORDER RE:
CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION,
Petitioner, | AND CHILD SUPPORT
and | [Judicial Council Form FL-300]
RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO, | Hearing Date: To Be Set by the Court
Hearing Time: To Be Set by the Court
Respondent. | Department: To Be Set by the Court