ROSSNI PRESENDIEU v. AMANDA PRESENDIEU

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 ROSSNI PRESENDIEU,) Case Number: FDI-25-802166) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 14, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 AMANDA PRESENDIEU,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHANGE OF VISITATION (PARENTING TIME), 13 CHILD SUPPORT, EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS/ NEUTRAL EXCHANGE TERMS; REQUEST 14 FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHANGE OF VISITATION (PARENTING TIME), CHILD 15 SUPPORT, EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS/ NEUTRAL EXCHANGE TERMS 16 TENTATIVE RULING 17 The parties are ordered to appear.

The parties may appear in person in Dept. 403 or remotely by 18 Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and 19 Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 20 A. Procedural History 21 1) The parties are Petitioner Rossni Presendieu (Father) and Respondent Amanda Presendieu 22 (Mother). They share one minor child: Isaiah (DOB: 6/2/24). 23 2) On 4/2/26, Father filed a Request for Order seeking modification of the 2/2/26 child custody and 24 parenting time orders and guideline child support.

Father requests restrictions on third party 25 attendance at custodial exchanges (i.e., that the Court prohibit Greg Smith’s (Mother’s father) 26 presence). Father also requests “child abduction prevention orders because there is a history of 27 Isaiah being taken out of state without my consent.” The matter was set for hearing on 5/18/26. 28 3) On 4/2/26, Father filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 29

1 4) On 5/4/26, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration. Mother agrees to her father not being present 2 at custodial exchanges and guideline child support. Mother requests permission to travel to 3 Denver, CO 5 times annually during her custodial time to visit her extended family. 4 5) On 5/7/26, Father filed a Reply Declaration reiterating his requests. 5 6) On 5/18/26, both parties appeared at readiness hearing and the Court referred the matter to Family 6 Court Services (FCS) Mediation on 6/29/26 and set a return hearing on 7/14/26. 7 7) On 6/29/26, both parties attended mediation, but did not reach any agreements. 8 8) On 6/30/26, Mother filed a supplemental declaration reiterating her requests. 9 B.

Findings and Order 10 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 11 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 12 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 13 child(ren) is the United States. 14 2) All requests related to child support are DENIED without prejudice as they must be addressed in 15 related case no. FCS-26-357805. The Department of Child Support Services is involved in the 16 case and there is active litigation in Department 414. 17 3) As to the requests related to child custody and visitation, the parties are ordered to appear. 18