CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Non-Dependency Issues
.........Guardianship
15 Cards On This Topic:

Probate Code 1516.5 is not unconstitutional on its face for failing to require a finding of present parental unfitness; retroactive application was consistent with due process based on facts of case.

Court of Appeal erred by deeming F eligible for constitutional protection re Prob. Code 1516.5 under Kelsey S. where mother did not prevent him from acquiring statutory rights of a presumed father.

Order terminating guardianship reversed as truncated hearing deprived guardian of meaningful opportunity to object, and kept the court from fully considering whether termination was in Cs' best interests.

Mother's interest in appointed counsel to oppose guardianship petition did not outweigh the presumption that due process guarantees appointed counsel only where loss of liberty is threatened.

Results of a CPS investigation were adequately reported to court investigator and included in his report to prob. court—PC 1513(c) doesn't require written report from CPS to court.

Probate court should have referred case to CPS where guardian's allegations about potential F's parenting deficiencies amounted to a charge that he was an unfit parent.

Though parents now able to provide necessities, substantial evidence supported decision that to terminate guardianship would have been detrimental to C and not in her best interest.

As termination of legal guardianship not governed by W&IC 366.26, guardian appointed by juv. court not entitled to reunifica'n services; in terminating guardianship, court's inquiry was whether change in status was in C's best interest.

Neither UCCJEA nor Prob.C §2201 deprived trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings in longstanding custody case concerning Greek-American child.

Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of Internat'l Child Abduction did not deprive trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate guardianship in longstanding custody case.

Probate court policy denying parents or counsel copies of investigation report and recommendation re proposed guardianship rests on erroneous interpretation of PC 1513(d).

Evidence insufficient to establish that M, left with grandparents for 3 days before they filed for guardianship and court intervened, was "left" in GPs' custody for 6 mos required by FC 7822 for a finding of abandonment.

Court of Appeal dismisses GPs' appeal of denial of guardianship petition after their and counsel's conduct in defying order and allowing minor to be married secretly in Bahamas; appeal also mooted by marriage.

No finding of parental unfitness required in non-dependency proceeding for appointment of legal guardian. DP safeguards termination of parental rights absent showing of unfitness, but custody after F vetoed adoption is for separate decision.

As Prob. Code §1470 unambiguous in compelling parent/s to pay child's guardianship attorney's fees and costs, there is no authority for compelling grandparents or other nonparents to pay.