Annikka McAllister v. Derrick Benson

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

5) 6 ANNIKKA MCALLISTER,) Case Number: FDV-24-818009) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 23, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 DERRICK BENSON,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION 13 (PARENTING TIME), SEE ATTACHMENT 8 - ADDITIONAL ORDER REQUESTED 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15

16 The parties are ordered to appear in-person or via Zoom video at 9AM on 7/23/2026 in Department 17 404. If a party chooses to appear by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for 18 Remote Appearance in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 19

20 A. Procedural History 21 1) Petitioner Annikka McAllister (Mother) and Respondent Derrick Benson (Father) have two minor 22 children together, Michael (DOB 8/30/2017, age 8), and Marcus (DOB 8/10/2022, age 3). The 23 Court dismissed Mother’s request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against 24 Father after she did not appear at the DVRO hearing; however, the Court maintained its prior 25 order for sole legal and physical custody to Mother with one-hour, weekly supervised visits for 26 Father at Rally Family Visitation Services (Rally). 27 2) On 10/15/2025, the Court ordered that Father may have his one-hour, weekly supervised visits at 28 either Rally or at Healthy Families Happy Families (Healthy Families). On 10/17/2025, the Court 29 issued a 3-year DVRO against Father protecting Mother and the children. On 2/4/2026, the Court

1 maintained its prior order for supervised visits at either Rally or Healthy Families. On 5/13/2026, 2 the Court maintained the Rally order and awarded Father an additional 2 hours of supervised 3 visits per week through Happy Families. 4 3) On for hearing is Father’s request filed 5/1/2026 seeking a change in custody and parenting time, 5 a minimum of 2-3 hour visits, a makeup policy for missed visits, a step-down plan from 6 supervision toward less restrictive visitation, access to the children's medical, education, and 7 therapy records, and minor’s counsel for the children, a speech evaluation for Marcus, a custody 8 evaluation, and an evidentiary hearing as the Court deems appropriate or necessary. 9 4) Mother opposes Father’s requests, stating she was trafficked and sexually and physically abused 10 by Father, who is 19 years older than she is.

Mother states that Father kidnapped her and their 11 child and that law enforcement became involved. Mother states the current order is necessary for 12 the children’s safety. She states that Marcus is already enrolled in speech-related services and she 13 is perusing an IEP assessment through his school. Mother states she objects to the appointment of 14 minor’s counsel because the children already have substantial court protections in place. 15 5) Father has filed two supplemental declarations.