Johnny H Mansour v. Namiko Nakatani

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

5) 6 JOHNNY H MANSOUR,) Case Number: FDI-20-793161) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 21, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 NAMIKO NAKATANI,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER OF CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION (PARENTING TIME) 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 The parties are ordered to appear at 10am. The parties may appear in person in Department 404 or 15 remotely by Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice 16 and Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 17

18 A. Procedural History 19 1) Johnny H. Mansour (Father) and Namiko Nakatani (Mother) have one minor child together, 20 Tsuki (DOB 11/11/2014, age 11). The parties have joint legal and joint physical custody of Tsuki. 21 2) In a Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) filed 7/15/2025, the Court noted that the parties 22 reached an agreement at mediation for holiday parenting time (Summer 2025 and 23 Thanksgiving/Winter) and travel. The Court issued a parenting time schedule for the school year 24 and other holidays and also issued conduct orders including gun safety, coparent counseling, and 25 non-disparagement orders. 26 3) On 1/7/2026, Father filed a request for a change in custody and parenting time. He seeks: (1) 27 "clear protocols for the Right of First Refusal"; (2) a set schedule for 2026; (3) appointment of a 28 parenting coordinator. 29

1 4) On 1/27/2026, Mother filed a response in which she seeks: (1) an order prohibiting Father from 2 enrolling Tsuki in extracurricular activities without Mother's consent; (2) an order requiring 3 advance disclosure of caregiver information and three-weeks' notice for purposes of exercising 4 the Right of First Refusal; and (3) advance notice and coordination for any public custody 5 exchanges. 6 5) On 1/30/2026, Father filed a reply declaration in which he responds to many of the statements 7 Mother has made in her response. 8 6) The Court has reviewed and considered all declarations. 9 B.

Findings and Orders 10 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 11 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 12 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 13 child is the United States. 14 2) The parties are ordered to appear in person or via Zoom on 4/21/2026 at 10am in 15 Department 404. 16

20

24

28

29