| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Motion to Discharge Contempt; Order to Show Cause for Contempt
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 KENT PENWELL,) Case Number: FDI-25-801720) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 23, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 REAGAN PENWELL,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISCHARGE CONTEMPT MOTION FILED ON 13 1/2/2026; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND AFFIDAVIT FOR CONTEMPT; ORDER TO SHOW 14 CAUSE AND AFFIDAVIT FOR CONTEMPT 15 TENTATIVE RULING 16 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 17 Court makes the following findings and orders: 18 A. Procedural History 19 1) The parties are Petitioner Kent Penwell (Father) and Respondent Reagan Penwell (Mother). They 20 share two minor children: Stella (age 10) and Kent (age 9). 21 2) On for hearing on 4/23/26 are the following three motions: 22 a. Mother’s Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt filed 1/2/26, alleging Father 23 violated the Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Order (DVTRO). Mother 24 concurrently filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, supportive attorney 25 declaration, and Income and Expense Declaration on 1/2/26. 26 b. Mother’s Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt filed 1/23/26, alleging Father 27 violated the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders (ATROS) and the DVTRO. 28 c. Father’s Request for Order filed 2/6/26 seeking to discharge Mother’s Order to Show 29 Cause and Affidavit for Contempt filed 1/2/26, which alleged Father violated Domestic
1 Violence Temporary Restraining Orders (DVTROs). Father concurrently filed a 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3 3) On 3/11/26, Mother filed Respondent’s Notice of Errata and Resubmission of the Attached 4 Corrected Order to Show Cause and Affidavit of Contempt with Attachments (Initially Filed on 5 January 23, 2026). Mother concurrently filed an amended supportive attorney declaration on 6 3/11/26, which is entitled “the Amended Declaration of Kelly Fitzgerald Canby ISO 7 Respondent’s Corrected Supplemental Request for Order Seeking Issuance of Order to Show 8 Cause re Contempt.” 9 4) On 4/10/26, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Father’s Request for Order 10 filed 2/6/26. Mother concurrently filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities on 4/10/26. 11 5) On 4/16/26, Mother filed a Substitution of Attorney indicating that she is no longer represented 12 by attorney Roger B. Frederickson and is now represented by attorney Charles H. Delacey. 13 6) On 4/16/26, Father filed Petitioner’s Objections to and Request to Strike Portions of 14 Respondent’s Contempt Motions. 15 7) On 4/16/26, Father filed a Reply Declaration in support of his Request for Order filed 2/6/26 16 seeking to discharge Mother’s Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt filed 1/2/26. 17 B. Findings and Order 18 1) As a threshold issue, the Court SUSTAINS Father’s objections to and GRANTS Father’s request 19 to strike Exhibit 7 of the Amended Declaration of Kelly Fitzgerald Canby ISO Respondent’s 20 Corrected Supplemental Request for Order Seeking Issuance of Order to Show Cause re 21 Contempt filed on 3/11/26. The Court will consider Exhibit 7 stricken. 22 2) In proceeding to the merits of the motion to discharge, the Court focuses on the elements required 23 for a finding of contempt which are: (1) a valid court order, (2) knowledge of the order, and (3) 24 willful violation of/ noncompliance with the order. 25 3) Here, through contempt actions filed on 1/2/26 and 1/23/26, Mother alleges Father violated the 26 DVTRO and ATROS by confiscating her vehicle to deny her transportation, sending harassing 27 communications to Mother and the children’s nanny and babysitter, inquiring about Mother’s 28 whereabouts, surveilling the family residence, and taking actions such as redirecting his income 29 away from a joint account, resulting in severe financial hardship for Mother. Mother states she
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
1 never provided consent for the funds to be redirected and she believes it was done to interfere 2 with her ability to obtain the necessities of life and to exercise coercive control over her thereby 3 disturbing her peace. 4 4) The first two elements of contempt are undisputed (i.e., there was a valid DVTRO of which 5 Father had knowledge and the ATROs apply). 6 5) As such, it is Mother’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., more likely than 7 not) that Father willfully violated these orders. 8 6) The Court finds Mother did not meet her burden as (a) this Court is not aware of property control 9 orders giving Mother exclusive use and possession of the car at issue, which Father alleges is 10 community property; (b) the DVTRO was extended on 10/29/25 to include an order permitting 11 both parties to contact the children’s nanny and there were no orders made regarding 12 communication with a babysitter; (c) the alleged incidence of surveillance (i.e., when Father 13 showed up at the family residence) occurred before the DVTRO was in place; and (d) Father is 14 under no obligation to deposit his post-separation earnings in a joint account. 15 7) Based on the foregoing, pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 and in the furtherance of justice, the 16 Court finds good cause to GRANT Father’s Request for Order filed 2/6/26 seeking to discharge 17 Mother’s Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt filed 1/2/26 and DISCHARGE 18 Mother’s 1/23/26 Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt on the Courts own motion. 19 8) While the Court finds Father’s conduct does not rise to the level of contemptable conduct, the 20 Court is concerned that Father’s conduct is neither productive nor in the children’s best interest. 21 Father is admonished to focus on the children. Neither party shall use the children as messengers 22 between them. 23 9) Counsel for Father shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 24 10) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 25 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 26 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 27 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 28 proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing within 29
1 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 2 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 3
7
11
15
19
23
27
29