DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FL0001215·marin·FamilyLaw·Child Custody and Visitation
Hearing 3 months agoAppearances required.

ALYSSA R. COYNE v. EDMUND J. COYNE

Review hearing regarding custody/visitation

Hearing date
May 22, 2026
Department
E
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffALYSSA R. COYNE
DefendantEDMUND J. COYNE

Ruling

This matter is set for review of custody/visitation regarding the parties’ son, River (DOB 8/29/2022). Respondent/Father filed an Update Statement Re Custody and Visitation on 5/11/2026 in which he requests that his visits with River no longer be supervised, that he be granted joint legal custody, that he cease Soberlink testing, with a review hearing in 30 days. Father contends he has been completely sober since the end of January 2025. He states his last in-patient treatment ended in February 2025, he is still doing SMART recovery, still has an AA sponsor, and his therapist and he have taken a break based on his therapists finding he is doing well emotionally and mentally.

He is recovering from his injuries but remains in a wheelchair and has received medical clearance and a prescription to drive a car with adaptive hand tools. Father reports his visits with Willow are going well, but he had to stop Thursday visits due to the supervision expense.

Petitioner/Mother filed a Status Update Statement on 5/15/2026 in which she opposes Father’s requests for unsupervised visitation. Mother states Father has not demonstrated the ability to safely care for River in his apartment while he is in a wheelchair and without an aide (whose services will terminate as of 6/10/2026). Mother cites to a 3/14/2026 supervised visitation report where, while outside, Father’s wheelchair bumped into River, although Father was able to catch River before he fell. She opposes Father’s request for joint legal custody based on Father’s history of substance abuse. Mother notes that the parties have agreed to private mediation that would include the issue of child custody and timeshare.

Appearances required.

Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is selfrepresented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin

County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Court website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share