ROBERT HINES v. CHERI GATEWOOD JOHNSON

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

5) 6 ROBERT HINES,) Case Number: FMS-25-387613) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 16, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHERI GATEWOOD JOHNSON,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME), 13 AND MOVE AWAY WITH MINOR CHILDREN 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 The parties are ordered to appear in-person or by Zoom at 10AM. If a party chooses to appear 16 by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearance in San 17 Francisco Family Court set forth above. 18

19 A. Procedural History 20 1) Petitioner Robert Hines (Father) and Respondent Cheri Gatewood Johnson have three minor 21 children together, Edward (DOB 5/29/13, age 13), Everett (DOB 6/6/2016, age 22 10), and Elizabeth (DOB 8/1/2018, age 7). 23 2) Pursuant to an 8/24/2022 Divorce Decree from the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas— 24 which was registered in this Court on 12/9/2025—the parties “share joint legal custody of the 25 minor children with Mother having primary physical custody. The parties shall discuss all major 26 parenting decisions together; however, in the event they are unable to reach an agreement then 27 Mother shall have the final say.” The Divorce Decree further provides that Father’s parenting 28 time shall be every other Friday after school to Sunday at 5PM (or until Tuesday school drop off 29

1 if Monday is a school holiday), every Thursday after school to Friday morning drop off, “[a]ll 2 other times by agreement,” and certain holidays. 3 3) On for hearing is Father’s request filed 3/27/2026 in which he seeks joint legal custody, “primary 4 physical custody,” and an order allowing him to move to Arkansas with the children. He asserts 5 his actual timeshare has been significantly greater than what is set forth in the Arkansas Divorce 6 Decree. Father has filed a memorandum of points and authorities in which he asserts that the 7 children’s best interests and the LaMusga factors (In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 8 1072) weigh in favor of relocation for the children. 9 4) On 7/2/2026, Mother filed a response, two declarations, and a memorandum of points and 10 authorities in opposition to Father’s request.

She states that Father’s assertion of his parenting 11 time is unsupported and that the move would uproot the children who have lived in San Francisco 12 for 5 years and prevent them from being near their mother, stepfather, and their twin 5-month-old 13 siblings. Mother asserts the sibling relationship must be considered and that the LaMusga factors 14 weigh against relocation for the children. Mother states that the Arkansas court previously denied 15 Father’s request for a change in custody and his request to move to Arkansas with the children. 16 5) On 7/9/2026, Father filed a reply seeking an order granting his move-away request before the 17 start of the 2026-2027 school year or, in the alternative, a 3-4-4-3 parenting time schedule. 18 Father disagrees that he has less parenting time than Mother.