There's actually a problem with the law. So, you may have trouble getting a default.
The actual law states: "A responsive pleading, if any, shall be filed and a copy served on the petitioner within 30 days of the date of the service on the respondent of a copy of the petition and summons." Family Code 2020.
However, Cal. R. Ct. Rule 5.62(a), provides: "Except as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, a respondent or defendant is deemed to have appeared in a proceeding when he or she files: (1) A response or answer."
The Code and the Rule are in conflict, because the law expressly requires that a copy of the response must be served on the petitioner within 30 days -- but the Rule does not require service.
It is well established that the California Judicial Council cannot make rules that violate statutory law. See Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 483, 492
. So, you can argue that Fam. Code 2020 expressly requires that service must be made upon you within the 30-day deadline, to avoid a default. And, you can use Elkins as your precedent case law, and ask the court to rule that the respondent is in fact in default, despite Rule 5.62(a)(1).
And, then, I suggest that you may receive a classic display of Family Court judge apologetics, as the court attempts to explain to you that you do not understand the law. It should be quite interesting to see how the court explains this inconsistency away, as if it were obvious. It's definitely not obvious, and in my view the law clearly requires that the court strike respondent's pleading and enter a default.
Anyway, the choice is yours. If you don't want to try the motion, then you can take the motion off calender and move ahead with the case as a contested dissolution of marriage action.
Hope this helps.