JASMINE SHAVON WILLIAMS v. ADRIEN EUGENE GODBOLD

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

5) 6 JASMINE SHAVON WILLIAMS,) Case Number: FPT-25-378795) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 30, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ADRIEN EUGENE GODBOLD,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REVIEW HEARING: COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS ISSUED AT 6/02/26 HEARING 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14

15 The parties are ordered to appear in-person or via Zoom video at 9AM on 7/30/2026 in 16 Department 404. The parties shall be prepared to provide an update regarding whether a new case 17 has been opened in Alameda County. 18 If a party chooses to appear by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for 19 Remote Appearance in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 20

21 A. Procedural History 22 1) On 12/10/2025, Petitioner Jasmine Williams (Mother) filed a Petition to Determine Parental 23 Relationship of minor child, Brince (DOB: 4/16/2021, age 5). Mother alleges that Respondent 24 Adrien Godbold is the child’s father. Mother stated in the Declaration Under UCCJEA attached 25 to her Petition that the child had lived with her between birth through present in San Francisco. 26 Mother attached a copy of the child’s birth certificate to her Petition which lists Respondent as 27 the child’s father and which states that the child was born in San Francisco. 28 2) On 4/8/2026, Respondent filed a Response to the Petition and agrees that he is the child’s father. 29 According to the Declaration Under UCCJEA attached to Respondent’s Response, the child has

1 lived in the following places: from birth to January 2022 in Oakland, CA with both parents; from 2 January 2022 – May 2022 in Fairfield, CA with Mother; from May 2022 – December 2022 in Las 3 Vegas, NV with Mother; from December 2022 – April 2023 in Fairfield, CA with Mother; and 4 from 4/2023 – present in Oakland, CA with Mother.

5 3) There have been no parentage findings or custody and visitation orders made in this case to date. 6 4) On 4/8/2026, Respondent filed a Request for Order asking that the Court transfer venue of this 7 case to Alameda County under Code of Civil Procedure sections 397 and 397.5. 8 5) Per the Proof of Service filed 4/8/2026, Respondent filed a Response to the Petition, Request for 9 Order, blank Responsive Declaration, and the Tentative Ruling Instructions were mailed to the 10 address the Court has on file for Mother. 11 6) At the prior 6/2/2026 hearing, both parties appeared. Mother stated that she did not oppose 12 Respondent’s request to transfer venue of this case to Alameda County. The Court granted

13 Respondent’s request to transfer venue and stated it would prepare the Findings and Order After 14 Hearing. 15 7) On 6/26/2026, this Court issued (and mailed to both parties) a Findings and Order After Hearing 16 memorializing its order granting Respondent’s request to transfer venue of this case to Alameda 17 County. The Court ordered Respondent to open a new case in Alameda County and set a review 18 hearing for 7/30/2026 to review compliance with this order. The Court also ordered both parties 19 to file and serve an update declaration explaining whether a new case was opened in Alameda 20 County at least 10 calendar days in advance of 7/30/2026.