Rebecca Watters Vs. Ethan Watters

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4 5 ) 6 CYNTHIA HERNANDEZ, ) Case Number: FDI-20-792829 ) 7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 9, 2025 ) 8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM ) 9 JUNE M. KING, ) Department: 404 ) 10 Respondent ) Presiding: ANNE COSTIN ) 11 ) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, AND CONTINUE TRIAL 13 DATES; PAYMENT OF OBLIGATIONS FOR RAILROAD PROPERTY 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A. Procedural History 18 1. The parties are Petitioner Cynthia Hernandez and Respondent June King. 19 2. On 12/24/24, Respondent filed a Request for Order asking the Court to (a) continue the 20 parties’ January trial dates to a date after 5/1/25, (b) terminate the $1,885 monthly 21 spousal support order (ordered 8/23/21 and filed 8/30/21) or set spousal support to zero 22 pending trial, and (c) order Petitioner responsible for the carrying costs on the 19170 23 Railroad Avenue property (“Railroad property”). 24 3. On 12/24/24, Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Petitioner’s 25 requests asserting that Respondent’s request for a continuance should be denied based on 26 the action approaching five years since commencement and stating that Respondent has 27 access to insurance funds to continue to pay spousal support. 28 29 1 4. This Request for Order was submitted ex parte, and the Court granted the continuance 2 request by written order on 12/24/24 setting the remaining issues for shortened time on 3 1/9/25. The new trial dates commence 5/27/25. 4 5. On 1/6/25, Respondent filed a Reply Declaration reiterating the requests set forth in her 5 Request for Order. 6 B. Findings and Order 7 1. Under Family Code section 4320(l), it is California public policy that supported spouses 8 become self-supporting within a reasonable period of time, which is defined by the 9 statute as one-half the length of the marriage (absent special circumstances and except 10 when the marriage was 10 years in length or longer). 11 2. Family Code section 4336 provides the Court’s authority to terminate spousal support in 12 later proceedings where the marriage is of long duration on a showing of changed 13 circumstances. 14 3. On 7/23/21, the Court issued a Final Statement of Decision finding the marriage between 15 the parties’ void, but that Petitioner had subjective good faith belief she was married to 16 Respondent from 2/16/04 to 2/10/20. 17 4. The current temporary spousal support order (ordered 8/23/21 and filed 8/30/21) of 18 $1,885 payable to Petitioner by Respondent includes a finding that Petitioner was 19 underemployed and a Gavron warning issued on Petitioner. 20 5. The Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction to terminate spousal support. However, the 21 Court finds good cause to modify temporary spousal support given that Respondent 22 reports retirement, provided documentary evidence of surgery scheduled 1/13/25 and 23 anticipated three-month period of incapacity, and raised plausible, unrefuted allegations 24 that Petitioner receives funds from other sources. Further, the Court issued a Gavron 25 warning on Petitioner in 2021. 26 6. As such, Petitioner’s request to set spousal support to zero pending trial is GRANTED 27 effective immediately. The Court reserves jurisdiction to modify the zero-dollar amount 28 upon a showing of changed circumstances prior to trial. 29 1 7. In the Findings and Orders After Hearing on 4/27/23 (filed 5/9/23), the Court ordered 2 Petitioner have exclusive use possession and control of the Railroad property and ordered 3 that Petitioner be responsible for the timely payment of all utilities while Respondent 4 continue to pay the mortgage, interest, and property taxes. 5 8. Respondent’s request that Petitioner be solely responsible to pay the carrying costs 6 (mortgage, property tax, and insurance payment) of the Railroad property is DENIED 7 pending trial. However, Respondent’s request for advanced distribution from her Charles 8 Schwab IRA to pay the carrying costs of the Railroad property is GRANTED. 9 Respondent is permitted to withdraw up to $7,837 ($629/month for January – June 10 mortgage payments + $3,540 for annual property taxes + $523 for annual insurance 11 payments) from her Charles Schwab IRA to be deducted from Petitioner’s share of 12 community property interest in this asset. The Court reserves jurisdiction on 13 characterization and reallocation of this this assert. 14 9. Respondent’s attorney shall prepare the written order after hearing. 15 10. Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing 16 – within 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to 17 the other party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of 18 Court, Rule 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was 19 uncontested, submit the proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to 20 submit the order after hearing within 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a 21 proposed order and submit it to the court in accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 22 5.125(d). 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4 5 ) 6 LAURA LIN, ) Case Number: FDV-22-816595 ) 7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 ) 8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM ) 9 NOLBERTO VILLALPANDO VAZQUEZ, ) Department: 404 ) 10 Respondent ) Presiding: ANNE COSTIN ) 11 ) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 This matter is on calendar for Respondent’s Request for Order asking the Court for Family Code section 15 6344 attorney’s fees and costs (filed 10/15/24). On the Court’s own motion, this matter is continued to 16 3/11/25 at 9 AM in Dept. 403 to be heard concurrently with a Review Hearing on calendar in 17 Related Case No. FDI-23-798301. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4 5 ) 6 ROY HEARNE JR, ) Case Number: FPT-23-378199 ) 7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 ) 8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM ) 9 SARAH M CHIN, ) Department: 404 ) 10 Respondent ) Presiding: ANNE COSTIN ) 11 ) 12 OTHER REVIEW HEARING 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1. The parties are Petitioner Roy Hearne (Father) and Petitioner Sarah Chin (Mother). 18 2. The parties have one child together, Sio (DOB 12/24/16). 19 3. Father lives in Antioch, California. Mother lives in Las Vegas, Nevada. 20 4. On 12/28/23, following an evidentiary hearing, the Court (Judge Tong) awarded the 21 parents joint legal and joint physical custody, with Father having sole decision-making 22 authority regarding school choice. The Court expressly noted and ordered that Mother 23 has a right to be informed and appraised of all academic information related to Sio, and to 24 participate in all school related activities (such as back to school night and parent teacher 25 conferences). 26 5. On 12/28/23, the Court denied Mother’s request to move to Las Vegas with Sio and 27 ordered Sio’s primary residence to be with Father in Antioch. Sio attends Brentwood 28 Elementary in Antioch. Mother was awarded parenting time with Sio in Las Vegas when 29 school is not in session (including but not limited to summer holidays, spring breaks and 1 long weekends). Both parents were awarded 30 minutes of phone or video calls with Sio 2 at 7:30pm when he is in the other parent’s care. Maternal Grandmother (Linda Chin) was 3 awarded one overnight with Sio per month. 4 6. On 2/22/24, the Court (Judge Tong) held a review hearing and maintained its prior 5 orders. The Court confirmed that Sio was to spend summer break with Mother from 6 6/9/24 to 7/20/24, with the parties to share airfare costs equally. 7 7. On 7/2/24, Mother filed a Request for Order, which (although the FL-300 form is 8 incomplete) appears to request sole legal and sole custody of Sio. Mother asserted that 9 she had not been provided with Sio’s school or medical information, and that she had 10 been unable to speak to Sio at the Court ordered times. Mother’s Request does not 11 indicate whether Sio was/had spent summer break with her in Las Vegas as the Court had 12 previously ordered. 13 8. On 8/9/24, Father filed a Responsive Declaration and opposed Mother’s request. He 14 asserted that Sio was safe, doing well in school, and had a huge support system with 15 extended family in California. Father asserted that Sio had spent his summer vacation 16 with Mother in Las Vegas. Father expressed concerns about Mother’s living conditions 17 and actions toward and in front of Sio while he visited her in Las Vegas. Father 18 requested that Mother’s future visitation with Sio occur in the San Francisco Bay Area. 19 Father requests that Mother’s phone calls with Sio be supervised and asserts that he has 20 overheard Mother making negative comments to Sio about Father and Father’s other 21 family members. 22 9. On 10/17/24, the Court (Judge Pro Tem Triano) held a hearing. It does not appear that 23 Father’s request to modify the location of Mother’s parenting time was considered, as no 24 changes to custody nor in person parenting time are reflected in the Order after hearing. 25 The Court did modify the communication schedule to provide for calls with the non- 26 custodial parent three times per week and ordered (as it previously had on 12/28/23) that 27 neither parent was to disparage the other in front of or within earshot of the minor child. 28 The Court set a review hearing for 1/7/25. 29 1 10. On 12/27/24, Mother filed a Declaration requesting clarification of the Court’s prior grant 2 of school choice decision-making authority to Father. Specifically, Mother requests that 3 maternal grandmother (Linda Chin) be permitted to volunteer at Sio’s school. Mother 4 states that Father is not complying with the Court’s order for calls three times per week 5 nor with the Court’s prior order for maternal grandmother to have one overnight visit. 6 Mother requested that the Court “revisit” her request that Sio live with her in Las Vegas. 7 B. Findings and Orders 8 1. This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform 9 Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 10 2. Given that it appears it was not adjudicated at the 10/17/24 hearing, Mother’s 7/2/24 11 request for sole legal and sole physical custody is denied. The parties shall continue to 12 share joint legal and joint physical custody. 13 3. Father shall continue to have sole decision-making authority regarding school choice. To 14 address Mother’s request for clarification, this means that Father may choose what school 15 Sio attends. If/when Sio leaves Brentwood Elementary, Father shall promptly provide 16 Mother with the name and contact information for Sio’s new school. 17 4. Mother shall have the right to access records and information about Sio (including 18 school, medical, dental, and extracurricular activity records) and consult with 19 professionals who are providing services to Sio. 20 5. Father is not required to advise Mother of when or what school activities are occurring; 21 Mother has the Court’s approval and authority to can sign up for school notifications and 22 access such information herself. 23 6. The Court has not entered any order preventing maternal grandmother Linda Chin from 24 volunteering at Sio’s school. So long as the school permits her to volunteer, she may do 25 so. 26 7. The Court declines Mother’s request to revisit her request that Sio live with her. This 27 matter was recently adjudicated following an evidentiary hearing. In the future if 28 Mother believes a change in circumstances warrants the Court to reconsider this issue, 29 1 she shall file a new Request for Order providing the Court with evidence to support her 2 request. 3 8. The parties are ordered to appear on 1/7/25 at 9am to discuss the following: 4 i. Father’s request that Mother’s future visits with Sio occur in San Francisco as 5 opposed to Las Vegas. 6 ii. Mother’s request that the Court set a specific day per month for Sio to spend an 7 overnight with his maternal grandmother. 8 iii. Mother’s request that the Court address her inability to consistently reach Sio 9 when she attempts to telephone him three times per week. 10 9. The Court will prepare the written order after hearing. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4 5 ) 6 SHANNON DIETZ, ) Case Number: FMS-17-386988 ) 7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 9, 2025 ) 8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM ) 9 THEODORE KENNEDY, ) Department: 403 ) 10 Respondent ) Presiding: RUSSELL S. ROECA ) 11 ) 12 OTHER REVIEW HEARING 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform 17 Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 18 1. This matter is on calendar for review of the Tier 2 interview of Amy Horn LMFT regarding the 19 minor, Tuilelaith (DOB 10.27.11). 20 2. On June 13, 2024 the Court ordered both parties to obtain copies of the minor’s school records 21 and to attach them to their update declarations. 22 3. On September 13, 2024 Petitioner Mother filed an update declaration attaching an update 23 declaration she states was filed on June 3, 2024. She also states that the FCS mediator was unaware the 24 Court ordered a Tier 2 interview of AP Giannini Middle School. Father has not had any contact with the 25 minor. Since February 8, 2024 Respondent Father has remained absent. Mother attached records 26 reflecting the child’s mental health concerns. The child is seeing Amy Horn LMFT. 27 4. Neither party produced the minor child’s school records as ordered. 28 29 1 5. At the hearing on September 24, 2024 the Court ordered a Tier 2 of Amy Horn following receipt 2 of mother’s declaration confirming the child was then planning to resume therapy sessions with Ms. 3 Horn. 4 6. On October 23, 2024, Minor’s counsel filed her declaration to accompany the FOAH from 5 September 24, 2024. Counsel states she sent the proposed FOAH from September 24, 2024 to Petitioner 6 Mother. Petitioner Mother responded “Good Afternoon, Respectively, and in light of having sole legal 7 custody of Tuilelaith, I no longer feel for the sake of her well-being that she (nor I) continue with this 8 process. Shannon” (Petitioner). 9 7. On December 18, 2024 the Court filed the Findings and Orders After Hearing on September 24, 10 2024 submitted by Minors Counsel. 11 8. Neither party has filed an update declaration with the Court. 12 9. The Court has received the Tier 2 report from FCS. Petitioner has not responded to efforts to 13 undertake the Tier 2 interview. 14 10. On January 7, 2025 Minor’s Counsel filed her third update to the Court. Counsel recommends 15 based upon the totality of the current that Mother should be granted sole legal and sole physical custody 16 of the child. 17 11. The Court grants Mother sole legal and sole physical custody. 18 12. Petitioner’s RFO is ordered adjudicated and off calendar. 19 13. Minor’s Counsel is relieved of her appointment and representation is concluded without waiver of 20 right to seek reappointment should other matter be brought before the Court. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2 3 4

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4 5 ) 6 BRANDON BAKHTIAR, ) Case Number: FDI-18-789193 ) 7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 9, 2025 ) 8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM ) 9 STEPHANIE MARIE EASTMAN, ) Department: 404 ) 10 Respondent ) Presiding: ANNE COSTIN ) 11 ) 12 OTHER REVIEW HEARING 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1. The parties are Petitioner Brandon Bakhtiar (Father) and Respondent Stephanie Eastman 18 (Mother). 19 2. They have one child together, Shiloe, age 7 (DOB 2/17/17). 20 3. The parties share joint legal custody. Mother has sole physical custody. 21 4. This matter is on calendar for a review hearing regarding the status of Father’s supervised 22 visitation. 23 5. On 12/23/24, Mother filed an update Declaration. She reported that Father and Shiloe 24 have commenced supervised visitation with Laura Weisbrich. Mother reports that 25 overall, the visits are going well. Mother states that she is unclear how to answer 26 questions that Shiloe has asked her about past events involving Father, and suggests the 27 parents work with a co-parenting counselor (with Father paying all associated costs). 28 Mother requests that supervision remain professionally supervised for one hour per week. 29 1 Mother requests that the Court order a psychological evaluation of Brandon to assess his 2 ability to provide a stable and supportive environment for Shiloe. 3 6. On 12/24/24, Father filed an update Declaration. Father attached the supervised 4 provider’s reports from the first through third professionally supervised visits he had with 5 Shiloe between 11/30/24 and 12/14/24. Father references a fourth visit on 12/21/24 and 6 related report, but that report was not attached to Father’s Declaration. Father also noted 7 that a fifth visit was scheduled to occur on 12/28/24. Father requests the Court permit 8 unsupervised visitation and order a step up parenting plan, with exchanges to occur either 9 at Shiloe’s school or at the San Mateo police station. Father asserts that Mother has 10 disparaged him to or in front of the minor child. 11 B. Findings and Orders 12 1. This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform 13 Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 14 2. The reports from the supervised visitation provider are positive, and show the Court that 15 Father exercised good judgment in how he responded to difficult questions from Shiloe 16 regarding conflict between the parents (including in response to questions from Shiloe 17 which evidence that Mother has made disparaging comments to her regarding Father). 18 3. The Court finds that there is good cause and that it is in Shiloe’s best interest to eliminate 19 the supervision requirement for Father’s parenting time. 20 4. The Court intends to order a step-up visitation schedule with a review hearing. The Court 21 is inclined to orders as follows: 22 a. Beginning on Saturday 1/11/25, Father shall have unsupervised parenting time 23 with Shiloe every Saturday from 4-7:30pm. Exchanges shall occur at the Barnes 24 and Noble in San Mateo (i.e. at the location where Shiloe has been attending 25 supervised visitation). 26 b. Beginning in March of 2025, Father shall additionally have a weeknight visit 27 (day of week TBD based on Shiloe and parties’ schedules) with Shiloe. Father 28 shall pick up Shiloe from school and return her to Mother at the Barnes and 29 Noble bookstore at 7:30pm. 1 c. Review hearing in mid-April of 2025. 2 d. The parties are ordered to appear to discuss the details and logistics of the above 3 tentative schedule. 4 5. The Court would also like to hear Father’s response to Mother’s suggestions of a co- 5 parenting counselor. 6 6. The Court denies Mother’s request to order Father to undergo a psychological evaluation. 7 7. The parties are ordered that they are not to make any negative statements about the other 8 parent (or that other parent’s romantic partners, family members, or friends) to or within 9 earshot of Shiloe. 10 8. A violation of the Court’s orders may subject the party in violation to civil or criminal 11 penalties, or both. 12 9. Shiloe’s country of habitual residence is the United States. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4 5 ) 6 BREAUX ALANDER WALKER, ) Case Number: FDI-23-797890 ) 7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 ) 8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM ) 9 EDITH SILVER WALKER, ) Department: 403 ) 10 Respondent ) Presiding: RUSSELL S. ROECA ) 11 ) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER OF REQUEST FOR MOVE AWAY AND CUSTODY ORDERS CHILD 13 CUSTODY, CHILD SUPPORT, MOVE TO MARYLAND 14 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, CHILD SUPPORT 15 TENTATIVE RULING 16 Custody/Visitation 17 The parties are currently undergoing a child custody evaluation by Alison Urdan. The Court has 18 not been provided with an update as to the status of the CCE and expected date of receipt of the CCE. 19 This matter is continued to March 27, 2025 in Dept. 403 at 9:00 a.m. for receipt of the CCE. Both parties 20 shall file and serve update declarations directed exclusively at the CCE. 21 Financial 22 The parties agreed to a stipulation and order on 10/23/2024, which provided that child support 23 and Mother’s work search order should be reviewed at the 1/7/2025 hearing. On 1/2/2024, 2 days before 24 the court hearing, Mother belatedly filed her proof of her work search efforts and Father belatedly filed an 25 Update Declaration requesting the court impute Mother at minimum wage. Neither party filed an updated 26 Income and Expense Declaration. 27 The matter is continued to 3/27/2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept.403 for review of Mother’s work search 28 efforts and child support. Twenty days in advance of the next hearing date, the parties shall file updated 29 Income and Expense Declarations with proof of income and Statement of Support Calculations. 1 Counsel for Mother shall prepare the order. Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the 2 court to prepare the order after hearing – within 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve 3 the proposed order to the other party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA 4 Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, 5 submit the proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing 6 within 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 7 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4 5 ) 6 RICHARD HUANG, ) Case Number: FDI-23-798429 ) 7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 9, 2025 ) 8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM ) 9 CHIALI WANG, ) Department: 403 ) 10 Respondent ) Presiding: RUSSELL S. ROECA ) 11 ) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 On for hearing is Mother’s 10/3/2024 Request for Order for $30,000 in attorney’s fees and costs 17 ($25,000 in incurred and $5,000 in prospective). On 12/6/2024, Father filed a Responsive Declaration 18 requesting the Court deny Mother’s RFO and requesting sanctions. On 12/12/2024, Mother filed a Reply, 19 reiterating her request. The matter was continued at the 12/19/2024 hearing date. 20 Mother’s request for $30,000 in Family Code section 2030 attorney’s fees and costs is granted. 21 An award of attorney’s fees and costs is appropriate because there is a demonstrated disparity between the 22 parties in access to funds to retain or maintain counsel and in the ability to pay for legal representation. 23 The party requested to pay attorney’s fees and costs has or is reasonably likely to have the ability to pay 24 for legal representation of both parties. The requested attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable and 25 necessary. Father shall pay to Mother $30,000 in attorney’s fees and costs ($25,000 in incurred and 26 $5,000 in prospective), from his separate property. Father shall pay to Mother $15,000 on 1/15/2025 and 27 $15,000 on 02/15/2025. 28 Father’s requests for sanctions and a fee award raised in his Responsive Declaration, are denied. 29 The requests are beyond the scope of the RFO. 1 Counsel for Mother shall prepare the order. Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the 2 court to prepare the order after hearing – within 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve 3 the proposed order to the other party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA 4 Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, 5 submit the proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing 6 within 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 7 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4 5 ) 6 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) Case Number: FCS-21-354959 ) 7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 9, 2025 ) 8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM ) 9 JIMMY LAROY DAVIS JR, ) Department: 404 ) 10 Respondent ) Presiding: ANNE COSTIN ) 11 ) 12 OTHER REVIEW HEARING 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 The parties are ordered to appear. The parties may appear in person in Department 404 or 15 remotely by Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the 16 Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 17 1. This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 18 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 19 2. The parties are Debbie Sims (Mother) and Jimmy Davis (Father). 20 3. They have one child together, Ryder, age 6. 21 4. The parties share joint legal and joint physical custody. 22 5. The orders currently in place provide that Father has parenting time with Ryder on the First and 23 Third weekends of each month, from Wednesday after school until Monday drop-off at school. 24 6. In addition, if either parent is unable to care for Ryder for an extended period of time (more than 25 4 hours), that parent is required to notify the other party. 26 7. This matter is on calendar on 1/9/25 for a review hearing. Both parties were ordered to file and 27 serve update declarations at ten days before the hearing to inform the court of the status of the 28 parenting schedule. Neither parent filed an update declaration. 29 1 8. However, Family Court Services has advised the Court that the parties attended mediation on 2 12/31/24 and that they have been unable to reach an agreement with regard to where exchanges 3 should occur when school is not in session. 4 9. The Court orders that when school is not in session, Mother is to drop off Ryder at Father's house 5 (curbside) on Wednesdays, and Father is to drop off Ryder at Mother's house (curbside) on 6 Mondays. 7 10. Family Court Services has also advised the Court that the parties reached an agreement regarding 8 specific holiday parenting time. If the parties wish for this to become a formal Court Order they 9 should sign and return the Stipulation from Family Court Services. 10 11. If either parent has any additional requests that they seek the Court to hear on 1/9/25, they must 11 follow the tentative ruling instructions above (before 4pm on 1/8/25 they must notify both the 12 Court and the other parent that they intend to appear at the hearing on 1/9/25). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29