COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO v. KEITH ALEX BUSSEY

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

5) 6 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,) Case Number: FCS-23-356428) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 28, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 8:30 AM) 9 KEITH ALEX BUSSEY,) Department: 414) 10 Respondent) Presiding: MUJDAH RAHIM) 11) 12 CHILD SUPPORT STATUS CONFERENCE 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 Other Parent Indira Carranza Navarro (“Mother”) and Respondent Earl Horton 18 (“Father”). 19 2.

The parties have two children, Kimberly Nevaeh Horton, age 12, and Gianni Isabella Carranza, 20 age 4. 21 3. On March 13, 2026, Mother filed a Request for Order for Change of Custody and Visitation. She 22 is requesting sole legal and physical custody of the minor children. With respect to parenting 23 time, Mother requests that Father have visitation every Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 24 4. The current custody order awards parties joint legal and physical custody. Under the current 25 order, Father’s parenting time is from Thursday at 9:00 a.m. to Sunday at 9:00 a.m. 26 5.

Mother seeks modification of the current custody and visitation order based on concerns 27 regarding Father’s living situation, possible drug use, and his failure to consistently exercise his 28 parenting time. Specifically, Mother sates that Father frequently asks her to pick up the children 29 early on Thursdays, which she reports occurs approximately two to three times per month.

1 Mother further alleges that Father is habitually late returning the children on Sundays, which 2 interferes with Mother’s and the children’s ability to attend church services. 3 6. A valid proof of service for Mother’s Request for Order is on file. 4 7. Father has not filed a Response to Mother’s Request for Order. 5 8. The parties had separate mediation appointments and did not reach an agreement. 6 9. At the Readiness Hearing, on April 13, 2026, the parties stipulated to the matter being heard by 7 Commissioner Mujdah Rahim, and the matter was continued to May 28, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in 8 Department 414. 9 10.

The Court notes that San Francisco Department of Child Support Services (SF DCSS) is a party 10 to this action. However, given child support is not at issue, SF DCSS’s appearance is not required 11 for purposes of this proceeding. 12 B. Findings and Order 13 1. This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 14 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 15 2. The parties have two children together, Kimberly, age 12, and Gianni, age 4. 16 3. Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that it is in the child’s best interest to order as 17 follows: 18 4.