Request for Order for Change of Visitation; Request to declare Petitioner vexatious litigant
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 BRANDON BAKHTIAR,) Case Number: FDI-18-789193) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 16, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 STEPHANIE MARIE EASTMAN,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: CINDEE MAYFIELD) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHANGE OF VISITATION (PARENTING TIME); 13 REQUEST FOR ORDER DECLARE PRETIONER BRANDON BHKHITIAR A VEXATIOUS 14 LITITGANT AND ORDER PREFILING APPROVAL AND/ OR BOND PRIOR TO FILING ANY 15 MOTION AND OR REQUEST IN THIS MATTER. 16 TENTATIVE RULING 17 The parties are ordered to appear in person or via Zoom at 9AM on 6/16/2026 in 18 Department 404 to discuss Mother’s Request for Order filed 3/3/2026.
If a party chooses to appear 19 by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearance in San 20 Francisco Family Court set forth above. 21 Additionally, absent good cause shown, the Court intends to make the following findings 22 and orders. 23
24 I. Mother’s Request to Modify Visitation 25
26 A. Procedural History 27 1) Petitioner Brandon Bakhtiar (Father) and Respondent Stephanie Marie Eastman 28 (Mother) have one child together, Shiloe Eastman Bakhtiar, age 9 (DOB 2/17/2017). 29 2) The current custody and visitation order is set forth in the Findings and Order After Hearing filed
1 November 21, 2025. 2 3) On March 3, 2026, Mother filed an RFO seeking to modify Father’s parenting time. A summary 3 of the proceedings related to this RFO is set forth in the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 4 June 1, 2026. 5 4) On May 5, 2026, Judge Mori ordered a Tier II report from Family Court Services (FCS). FCS 6 interviewed Shiloe’s therapist, Sara Wagner, LMFT. Ms. Wagner reported that she sees Shiloe 7 monthly for individual therapy. Shiloe presents as “very engaged and emotionally mature for her 8 age.”
Shiloe wants to have more “ ‘say so’ in the decision about visitation between her father and 9 herself.” Shiloe made it very clear to Ms. Wagner “that she prefers not to have visitation with her 10 father.” 11 5) Mother filed a supplemental declaration on June 4, 2026. She declared that Shiloe was upset 12 when informed after the May 5, 2026 hearing that she would be required to visit Father on 13 Tuesdays and alternate Saturdays pursuant to the “step up” parenting plan. Mother declared that 14 Father failed to pick Shiloe up from school on May 8, requiring Mother to make childcare 15 arrangements on short notice.
Mother further alleged that “Father ‘s communications have 16 continued to focus on his disputes with me rather than Shiloe’s needs.” 17 6) Father filed a Supplemental Declaration on June 8, 2026 in which he attacked Mother’s 18 credibility, and provided alternate accounts of specific issues raised by Mother. 19 B. Findings and Orders 20 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 21 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 22 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The country of habitual residence of the minor 23 child is the United States. 24 2) The parties are required to appear on June 16, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. for further proceedings on 25 Mother’s RFO filed March 3, 2026. 26
1 II. Mother’s Request to Deem Father a Vexatious Litigant 2
3 A. Procedural History 4 1) On 11/30/2023, a Findings and Order After Hearing was filed memorializing the orders made at
5 the 11/16/2023 hearing, wherein the Honorable Judge Roeca denied Mother’s request to deem 6 Father a vexatious litigant. Judge Roeca found, “There are at least five litigations that were finally 7 determined adversely to Petitioner within the last seven years that would qualify Petitioner as a 8 vexatious litigant under CCP 391(b)(1).” However, Judge Roeca denied Mother’s request to deem 9 Father a vexatious litigant “without prejudice should there be further filings without merit.” Judge 10 Roeca admonished Father “that absent changed circumstances he is not to file repeated motions 11 for the same relief” and further noted, “If the Court observes such conduct in the future the Court 12 may on its own motion or on the motion of Respondent deem Petitioner to be a vexatious
13 litigant...” 14 2) Now on for hearing is Mother’s Request for Order filed 4/20/2026 asking the Court to deem 15 Father a vexatious litigant. 16 3) Per the Proof of Service filed 4/27/2026, Mother’s Request for Order was mailed to Father on 17 4/22/2026. 18 4) Father did not file a Responsive Declaration. 19 B. Findings and Order 20 1) Since Judge Roeca made his order in November 2023, there have been four Requests for Order
21 filed in this case: 22 a. A Request for Order filed on 3/11/2024 by Mother requesting child support related 23 reimbursements. This Request for Order was denied by Commissioner Wightman on 24 4/23/2024 after a DCSS attorney found that all accounts had been paid and up to date. 25 Mother was admonished to seek permission from DCSS prior to filing requests for 26 enforcement in the future. 27 b. A Request for Order filed on 2/13/2026 by Father seeking to modify child support. This 28 Request for Order was denied by Commissioner Rahim on 3/24/2026 after a finding of no 29 changed circumstances.
1 c. Mother’s Requests for Order filed 3/3/2026 and 3/11/2026, which are being adjudicated 2 here. 3 2) The Court does not find good cause to deem Father a vexatious litigant at this time. Mother’s 4 request is denied.
6 III. Preparation of Order 7
8 1) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 9
13
17
21
25
29