County of San Francisco v. Eddie Swain

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

5) 6 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,) Case Number: FCS-23-356312) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 28, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 EDDIE SWAIN,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER OF CHILD CUSTODY, AND RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF 13 DVRO CCP 1008 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) The parties are Respondent Eddie A. Swain (Father) and Other Parent Amy K. Adams (Mother). 19 The minor child subject to this proceeding is Iam King Swain (DOB: 06/30/21). 20 2) On December 15, 2026, the Court consolidated case numbers FDV-28-818716 and FDV-25- 21 818532 into case number FCS-23-356312 (lead case). 22 3) On December 19, 2025, Father filed a Request for Order seeking modification of custody and 23 reconsideration of the court’s denial of his request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order 24 (DVRO), under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. The Court notes the parties 25 came before this Court on competing (i.e., mutual) restraining orders on November 6, 2025 and 26 December 8, 2025. On December 12, 2025, the Court denied both competing requests for 27 DVROs. However, the Court granted Father’s request for joint legal and joint physical custody 28 and gave Father parenting time on the 1st, 3rd and 5th weekends of each month from Friday at 5:00 29 p.m. – Monday morning drop-off at school.

1 B. Findings and Order 2 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 3 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 4 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 5 child(ren) is the United States. 6 2) Father’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his request for DVRO pursuant to 7 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 is DENIED. The Court finds Father has not 8 provided this Court with any new or different facts, circumstances, or law that were not available 9 to him at the time of the hearing. The Court considered the totality of the circumstances, and the 10 Court did not find a sufficient basis to grant Father’s request for a DVRO. 11 3) The Court further finds that there is no basis upon which to modify the existing child custody and 12 visitation orders. Father’s request for modification of custody is therefore DENIED. 13 4) All prior orders, not in conflict with the orders made herein, shall remain in full force and effect. 14 5) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 15