| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Request for Order Change Temporary Emergency Order; Child Custody; Visitation (Parenting Time); Order Shortening Time Transfer Benefits/Modification Custody Orders
This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor child is the United States.
2) The Court will maintain the current order for temporary sole legal and sole physical custody to Mother, with parenting time for Father as set forth in the Findings and Order After Hearing from the 2/17/2026 hearing, filed 2/18/2026.
3) If either party wishes to change the current custody or parenting time order, they may file a new request for order.
4) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED FAMILY COURT
MARGARITA N PRIKHODKO, Petitioner VS. ALEXANDER KAMIL, Respondent)))))))))))) Case Number: FMS-20-387303 Hearing Date: May 14, 2026 Hearing Time: 9:00 AM Department: 404 Presiding: AI MORI
REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGE TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME), ORDER SHORTENING TIME TRANSFER BENEFITS/ MODIFICATION CUSDODY ORDERS TENTATIVE RULING
The parties are ordered to appear at 9am on 5/14/2026 in Department 404 in person or via Zoom video.
If a party chooses to appear by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearance in San Francisco Family Court set forth above
A. Procedural History
1) Petitioner Margarita Prikhodko (Mother) and Respondent Alexander Kamil (Father) have one minor child together, Thomas (DOB 2/14/2011, age 16). Pursuant to a Stipulation and Order filed 5/4/2020, the parties have shared joint legal and joint physical custody of Thomas on a week-on, week-off schedule. In the 5/4/2020 Stipulation and Order, the parties also agreed to open a joint brokerage account to cover Thomas’s expenses and for each party to place $500 per month into the account.
2) On 4/17/2026, Father filed an ex parte request for sole legal and sole physical custody of Thomas. He states that on 3/1/2026, Mother “unilaterally surrendered custody” of Thomas to him after 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Thomas, who is “severely disable[d],” “completely non-verbal,” and “requires 24-hour supervision,” became aggressive, attacked Mother, and bit her, and Mother “completely lost control over him.” Father states he has been providing around-the-clock care for Thomas since 3/1/2026. He states he needs a custody and parenting time order so that he can receive In Home Support Services (IHSS) benefits for Thomas because Mother remains the authorized representative on the IHSS case. Father also seeks an order preventing either party from withdrawing funds from the joint brokerage account that they opened for Thomas. The Court denied Father’s ex parte request pending a hearing on 5/14/2026 on shortened time.
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
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?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
3) On 5/5/2026, Mother filed a response in which she states she initially had full custody of Thomas; she states that for the first 11 years of Thomas’s life, her timeshare was 99% and that Father's was 1%. In 2020, after 3 years of “extreme violence” by Thomas against her, Mother filed a motion to have Thomas placed in a mental hospital as she believed he was a threat and danger to himself and others. The matter was settled out of court, with the parties agreeing to share 50/50 custody and to open a joint account for Thomas’s benefit, with each party putting $500 per month into the account. She states that Thomas is now over 6’2” and wears XL men’s clothes and size 13 shoes. She states his behavior has worsened dramatically and that he bit a large chunk of flesh and muscle out of her left forearm, causing her permanent disfigurement and nerve damage. In addition, he regularly sexually assaults Mother and engages in self harm, smashing his head against walls until there are holes in the walls. Mother reiterates her request to have Thomas placed in a mental hospital. Mother also asks that the court permit her to withdraw assets from the joint account, which now has a balance of $340,000. She states she has placed $265,000 of this amount into the account, while Father has contributed $75,000. She states she has spent well over the account balance over the years, caring for Thomas.
B. Findings and Orders
1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor child is the United States. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
2) The parties shall appear at 9am on 5/14/2026 in Department 404 in person or via Zoom video.