Jane Doe v. John Doe

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

5) 6 JANE DOE,) Case Number: FDI-26-802519) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 21, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 JOHN DOE,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR CONFIDENTIAL DISSOLUTION 13 FILING 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A. Procedural History 18 1) On 1/30/2026, Petitioner Jane Doe filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage against 19 Respondent John Doe.

Petitioner states the parties married on 12/12/2014 and separated on 20 1/30/2025, for a marriage of 11 years and 1 month. The parties have 4 minor children, Children 21 Doe 1 – 4, ages ranging from 4 to 13. Both parties are self-represented. 22 2) On for hearing is Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 1/30/2026. Petitioner states Respondent is 23 her second husband. Petitioner states her first husband subjected her to extreme physical and 24 psychological violence and she has a permanent restraining order against her first husband. 25 Petitioner lodged documentary evidence to show that she is in California’s “Safe At Home 26 Address” program.

Petitioner states her first husband has also threatened to harm Respondent and 27 their children and he has been able to find “us at various points through various ways.” Petitioner 28 asks the Court to: 29 a. Permit the parties to proceed in this action under pseudonyms;

1 b. Order the parties’ legal names and identifying information be sealed, redacted, or 2 excluded from public records to the extent permitted by law; and 3 c. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper to protect their safety. 4 3) Both parties appeared at the prior hearing date on 4/9/2026. The Court continued the hearing to 5 4/21/2026 on its own motion. 6 B. Findings and Order 7 1) The Court finds that Petitioner is a protected person under the address confidentiality program 8 pursuant to Government Code 6205 et seq.

As such, she is entitled to use a pseudonym in a civil 9 proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 367.3. The Court similarly finds that 10 maintaining confidentiality of Respondent and the names of the parties’ children is essential for 11 their safety as well as Petitioner’s safety and this interest outweighs the constitutional right of 12 access in this case. 13 2) The parties are entitled to exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action 14 to conceal identifying information (as that term is defined by Code of Civil Procedure section 15 367.3(a)(1)) of the parties and their children.