County of Marin v. Willie E. Kennedy, Jr.

Respondent/Father Willie Kennedy filed a Request for Order seeking a modification of physical custody, a change in the location of exchanges, and a change of venue to Solano County. Father filed his Request for Order February 9, 2026. The underlying request concerns two minor children, Willie Kennedy III (DOB 10/12/2009) and Maximus Watkins (01/13/2014).

Lyndsey Watkins (Mother) did not file a responsive declaration.

The parents share joint legal and physical custody, and the boys are primarily with Mother and with Father on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th weekend of the month from Friday to Sunday.

The parties were referred to Marin Family Court Services (FCS) for child custody recommending counseling and mediation relating to the underlying requests. Both parents and the children were interviewed, and FCS provided their report on February 9, 2026.

The matter came on for hearing on April 30, 2026, at which time Mother requested a continuance to respond to the FCS report. Mother filed a Statement of Disagreement on May 8, 2026, requesting a private custody evaluation. Mother did not specify the provisions or recommendations of the FCS report she takes issue with. Further, Mother did not provide any detail as to who would pay for the private custody evaluation should such a request be granted.

During the interview with FCS, Mother expressed an interest in having sole custody of the children and expressed the belief that Father’s interest in modifying the visitation schedule was driven by an interest in reducing child support payments.

The parties were recently in court relating to the adjudication of dueling requests for domestic violence restraining orders. At a hearing on March 23, 2026, no permanent orders were issued, and the TROs were discontinued.

Despite these recent areas of conflict, FCS reports that both children are doing well. They seem to have a generally positive relationship with both of their parents and are trying to make the most of a challenging situation between the adults in their lives.

Based on the Court’s review of the submissions by the parties and the current and previous FCS reports, the Court finds good cause and that it is in the best interest of the children to adopt the recommendations from FCS, as modified by the Court, as follows:

Timeshare

1. During the school year, both boys shall continue to live primarily with Lyndsey and shall be with Willie every 1st, 3rd, and 5th weekend of the month from Friday pick up from school to return to school Monday morning. If Monday is a school holiday, then the boys shall remain in Willie’s care until return to school Tuesday morning.

2. During the summer months, both boys shall continue to live primarily with Lyndsey and shall be with Willie every 1st, 3rd, and 5th weekend of the month from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.

3. All exchanges that do not occur at school shall occur outside of Target in Vallejo. Both parents and their partners shall remain in their cars at exchanges.

4. Any changes to the schedule, or any additional time for either child to be with either parent, shall occur as desired by each child, and as agreed upon by the parents.

Collateral Issues

5. Max shall continue in therapy if desired by Max. Both parents shall follow any recommendations made by the therapist, including any recommendations for family therapy.

6. Neither parent shall use any physical discipline on either child or allow anyone else to.

7. The children shall not be exposed to any domestic violence or any verbal or physical abuse.

8. The children shall be exposed to peaceful contact only between their parents and any other adults.

9. Neither child shall be exposed to any information about family court or child support, or other adult issues.

10. Neither parent shall make any disparaging comments about the other parent or their partners.

11. Both parents shall ensure that the kids get to school on time and have good attendance records.

12. Neither parent shall share any information from the FCS report or these Court orders with either child.

Change of Venue

The change of venue is denied without prejudice. As the children are currently in school in Marin County, there is considerable contact with this county. Should there be additional changes in circumstances in the future, the parties may revisit this issue with the Court.

Request for Private Custody Evaluation

Mother’s request for a private custody evaluation is denied without prejudice as Mother has not provided the Court with an explanation for the reason for the further evaluation, nor has Mother provided a plan for how such an evaluation would be paid for. Mother is referred to the Legal Self Help Center for further discussion regarding her expressed wish for a private custody evaluation.

As authorized by CRC Rule 5.125, the Court shall prepare the formal Findings and Order After Hearing.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), which provide that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 7.12(C), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department B. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department B for video conference via a link on the court website. Litigants in the virtual courtroom are required to leave the video screen on and wait for your case to be called.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence.