Probate - Superior Court of California

Tentative Rulings
March 9, 2015
Department 6
1:30/1:45/2:30
ESTATES
EST OF MAX R. HAMMON
Case Number: 28097
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Recovery of Estate Property, Imposition of Constructive
Trust and for Financial Elder Abuse: This proceeding is a Petition for Probate of Will and for
Letters of Administration with Authorization to Administer under the IAEA. The matter is on
calendar for hearing on a Petition for Recovery of Estate Property, Imposition of Constructive
Trust and for Financial Elder Abuse. The Petition seeks to commence a civil proceeding within
the Estate proceeding. For the claims alleged, a civil action must be brought by the Executor on
behalf of the estate pursuant to her authority granted in Probate Code section 9820. No authority
is cited in the Petition which sets forth that a civil action may be brought within the estate case
filed in probate court. If a separate civil action is commenced, the civil case cover sheet shall
note the probate case as a related case.
The Petition is DENIED. The Court notes the future court date of April 20, 2015 for
Confirmation of Filing of Inventory and Appraisal and December 21, 2015 for Status of
Administration. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
EST OF JACK TOBY HOPKINS
Case Number: 27552
Tentative Ruling on Status of Administration of Estate: This proceeding is a Petition for
Letters of Administration and for Authorization to Administer under the IAEA. The matter is on
for proceedings regarding Status of Administration, having been continued most recently from
November 10, 2014 based on the Administrator’s representations that the Decedent’s relatives
have been difficult to track. At that time, the Administrator requested an extension of time to
today’s date to close the administration of the estate. There is no Petition for Final Distribution
filed with the Court; nor has a Status Report been filed as required by Probate Code section
12200, 12201. If a Petition for Final Distribution is not filed prior to the next hearing, the Court
1
ORDERS a Status Report be filed three (3) court days before the next hearing to apprise the
Court of (1) the condition of the estate, (2) the reasons why the estate cannot be distributed and
closed, and (3) an estimate of the time needed to close administration of the estate. Failure to do
so may result in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause Re Monetary Sanctions for failure to
comply with the Court Order. The hearing on the Status of Administration is continued to
Monday, April 6, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6. No appearance is necessary for
today’s calendar.
EST OF NEIL DALTON KING
Case Number: 27062
Tentative Ruling on First and Final Account and Petition for Final Distribution: This
proceeding is a Petition for Letters of Administration and for Authorization to Administer under
the IAEA. The matter is on for a First and Final Account and Report of Administrator and
Petition for its Settlement; Petition for Reimbursement of Administrative Expenses Paid by the
Administrator, for Allowance of Compensation to Administrator and Attorney for Ordinary
Services, Allowance of Compensation to Attorney for Extraordinary Services, and for Final
Distribution. The matter has been properly noticed, with proof of service on file. No objections
have been raised. The papers appear to be in order. The Petition is GRANTED as prayed. A
proposed Order was lodged with the Court and will be executed. The matter is set for Monday,
July 13, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6 for confirmation of filing of receipts and Petition
for Final Discharge. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
EST OF TED RILEY
Case Number: 28172
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Letters of Special Administration: This proceeding is a
Petition for Letters of Administration and for Authorization to Administer under the IAEA. The
hearing on the Petition appointing a personal representative is scheduled for March 23, 2015.
The matter is on calendar for a Petition for Letters of Special Administration to permit Petitioner,
Jason Jones, to act on the behalf of the estate on a time sensitive matter. Specifically, the estate
may be entitled to proceeds from the public auction of tax defaulted property but a claim for the
proceeds must be filed by March 16, 2015. The matter has been properly noticed in conformity
with the Court’s Order Prescribing Notice dated March 5, 2015, with proof of service on file. No
objections have been raised. The papers appear to be in order. The Court finds that the
appointment of a special administrator with limited authority is necessary under the
circumstances for the preservation of the estate. Prob. Code § 8540. The Petition is
GRANTED. A proposed order and letters have been lodged with the Court and will be
2
executed. The Court notes the future court date of March 23, 2015 for Further Proceeding on the
Petition for Letters of Administration and for Authorization to Administer under the IAEA,
Susan Lupica having appeared in Court on February 23, 2015 and having requested a
continuance so she could confer with counsel. No appearance is necessary on today’s
calendar.
EST OF DONALD R. SIMPSON
Case Number: 27993
Tentative Ruling on First and Final Account and Report of Executor and Petition for its
Settlement, For Allowance of Fees and For Final Distribution: This proceeding is a Petition
for Probate of Will and for Letters of Administration with Authorization to Administer under the
IAEA. The matter is on calendar for hearing for the First and Final Account and Report of
Executor and Petition for its Settlement, For Allowance of Fees and For Final Distribution. The
matter has been properly noticed, with proof of service on file. No objections have been raised.
The papers appear to be in order. The Petition is GRANTED as prayed. A proposed Order was
lodged with the Court and will be executed. The matter is set for Monday, July 13, 2015 at
1:30 p.m. in Department 6 for confirmation of filing of receipts and Petition for Final
Discharge. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
EST OF CHARLES H. SLATER
Case Number: 28001
Tentative Ruling on Confirmation of Filing of Inventory and Appraisal: This proceeding is
a Petition for Probate of Will and for Letters of Administration with Authorization to Administer
under the IAEA. The matter is on calendar today for Confirmation of Filing of Inventory and
Appraisal, which was to be filed within four months after letters were first issued pursuant to
Probate Code section 8800. The Inventory and Appraisal was filed March 4, 2015 and is
accepted by the Court. The Court notes the future court date of November 9, 2015 for Status of
Administration. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
3
TRUSTS
IN RE THE BOBBY N. MUSE LIVING TRUST
Case Number: 28163
Tentative Ruling on Petition to Compel Trustee to Give Account: This matter is on for a
Petition to Compel the Trustee to Give an Accounting filed by Beneficiary Jeannie Stephen. The
matter has been properly noticed, with proof of service on file. No objections have been raised.
The papers appear to be in order. The Petition is GRANTED. No proposed Order has been
lodged. An appearance is required to submit a proposed Order. The Court shall close its
file upon submission and execution of the Order.
IN RE THE FOSTER 1991 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
Case Number: 26649
Tentative Ruling on Claim of Exemption: This matter is on for a Claim of Exemption filed by
Judgment Debtor Judith Blencowe following the Court’s entry of Judgment Pursuant to
Arbitration Award on October 2, 2014. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of
service on file. The Claim of Exemption is opposed by Judgment Creditor Fred Carrier.
The Claim sets forth that it is made pursuant to a provision exempting property to the
extent necessary for the support of the Judgment Debtor. The financial statement filed alongside
the Claim sets forth that no persons depend on the Judgment Debtor. Total monthly income is
provided at $1865.00. Other assets include a $200.00 Tri Counties Bank checking account, a
2013 Chevy Impala valued at $9000.00, “illiquid Oil Notes from St. Anselm” with a $102,000
face value which the Judgment Debtor contends are “now essentially worthless,” and a $53,000
balance on a Wells Fargo Advisors account. Total monthly expenses are listed as follows:
Housing
Food
Utilities/Phone
Clothing
Medical and Dental
Insurance
Transportation/Auto
Laundry/cleaning
Entertainment
Total Monthly Expenses:
$ 1100
$ 300
$ 482
$
20
$ 700
$ 127
$ 100
$
20
$
40
$ 2,889
Judgment Debtor submits that her monthly expenses have long exceeded her monthly income by
over $1000. Up to now, this difference has been made up by her Wells Fargo Advisor account.
Judgment Debtor contends that if the garnishment is permitted to take place, she will
immediately have no funds by which the $1000 short fall can be paid. Judgment Debtor further
4
contends that the oil notes are illiquid and should not be considered in the Court’s calculus on an
exemption determination.
Judgment Creditor opposes the Claim on the grounds that the Claim fails to acknowledge
possession and control of real property over which Judgment Debtor is settlor and trustor under a
living trust, and otherwise fails to establish exemption as a matter of law. The Arbitration Award
for this action ordered Judgment Debtor to make a distribution from the trust monies she held
from the sale of the trust real property to Judgment Creditor in the sum of $73,622.11. As the
trust real property netted $183,826.50, Judgment Creditor contends this left behind $110,204.40
in net funds that Judgment Debtor received in June of 2014, the whereabouts of which are not
explained in the financial statement. In any event, Judgment Creditor points out that the
$73,622.11 award represented trust funds, not the Judgment Debtor’s personal funds, such that
there is no right to claim the funds as her own or use them for her support.
As for the Wells Fargo account, based on the submitted financial statement, Judgment
Creditor contends that over $20,000.00 from that account has been converted by Judgment
Debtor from trust funds earmarked for her brother. Accordingly, Judgment Creditor submits that
it would be improper to exempt funds over which Judgment Debtor never had ownership and
were supposed to be held in trust for her brother.
Finally, Judgment Creditor submits that the financial statement fails to indicate Judgment
Debtor’s interest in real property valued at approximately $560,000.00 which is held in a
separate living trust with Judgment Debtor as a beneficiary. Judgment Creditor contends that
Judgment Debtor may have attempted to transfer the real property, post judgment, to her
daughters in an effort to claim she does not personally “own” it. Also, the claim for $700.00 per
month in mental and dental expenses appears exaggerated, contending that if income is truly as
Judgment Debtor represents, she should have Medicare coverage.
After obtaining a judgment, the law allows a judgment creditor to garnish the wages of a
judgment debtor in order to satisfy that judgment. Pursuant to Federal Law, the maximum that
can be withheld is 25% of disposable earnings. Disposable earnings are defined as the earnings
remaining after deducting the amounts required by law to be withheld. Under California law,
even more than 75% can be exempt, if income is sufficiently low under the calculations set forth
in Code of Civil Procedure section 706.050. Furthermore, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 706.051(b), the portion of the judgment debtor’s earnings that the debtor proves is
necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the debtor’s family is exempt from levy.
In this matter, the Court agrees with Judgment Creditor that the submitted financial
statement is suspect on its face. In the least, the financial statement fails to reference or indicate
what happened to the real property proceeds which were the subject of the Arbitration Award,
fails to explain why oil notes face valued at $102,000 are suddenly illiquid and “essentially
worthless,” fails to account for the rapid depletion of the Wells Fargo account, and fails to
explain why medical and dental expenses are $700 per month when the numbers presented by
Judgment Debtor presumably bring her under the umbrella of Medicare. While the financial
statement may also be failing to disclose significant real property assets held by the Judgment
Debtor, the Court does not need to go into further analysis on that subject at this time. The
financial statement on its face does not support the claim of necessity for an exemption.
The claim of exemption is DENIED. No proposed Order has been lodged. An
appearance is required to submit a proposed Order. The clerk is directed to mail a
certified copy of the executed order to the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office. The Court shall
close its file upon submission and execution of the Order.
5
IN RE THE HELEN J. HARPER REVOCABLE TRUST
Case Number: 28093
Tentative Ruling on Further Proceedings Regarding Transfer to New Trustee and Closure
of File: This matter was previously set on February 23, 2015 to confirm the filing of receipts
reflecting the transfer of all assets to the new Trustee, John Grimes. On February 19, 2015, Mr.
Grimes filed a Receipt for Trust Assets signed under penalty of perjury. At the hearing on
February 23, 2015, counsel for Mr. Grimes appeared and requested a continuance to file an
Amended Receipt for Trust Assets. The matter was continued to today’s date. On March 4,
2015, Mr. Grimes filed an Amended Receipt for Trust Assets signed under penalty of perjury.
The Court finds that the Amended Receipt is satisfactory. Absent any objection at the hearing,
the Court shall close its file.
IN RE THE 2004 SANDRA J. FREEMAN REVOCABLE
Case Number: 28128
Tentative Ruling on Further Proceeding on Petition to Determine Validity of Purported
Trust Amendment and for Interim Order Blocking Proceeds from Conservator Pending
Litigation: The matter has been properly notice with proof of service on file as to all interested
parties. Respondent/Objector, Christina Moore filed an objection to the petition on January 21,
2015. The Petition is therefore disputed. An appearance is required by counsel for Petitioner
and Objector to discuss setting this matter for trial.
6
CONSERVATORSHIPS
CONS OF GENE D. BAKER
Case Number: 20772
1:45
Tentative Ruling on Biennial Review: This proceeding is a Conservatorship of the Person and
Estate. The matter is on for Biennial Review. The Court Investigator has requested a
continuance to complete her investigation and prepare the report. The matter is continued to
Monday, March 23, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6. As to the Conservatorship of the
Estate, the Court notes the Order Waiving Requirement of Filing Future Accounts and
Exonerating Bond filed February 5, 2004. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
CONS OF SHIRLEY A. BARCELON
Case Number: 28166
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Appointment of Conservator of the Person and Estate:
This matter is on for a Petition for Appointment of Conservator of the Person and Estate filed by
the proposed Conservatee’s mother. The proposed Conservators are (1) the mother of the
proposed Conservatee, Margaret-Mary Clemens, and (2) a cousin of the proposed Conservatee,
Ronald Van Rysselburghe. The proposed Conservators have been nominated by the proposed
Conservatee, and the Proposed Conservatee plans to attend the hearing on the Petition for
Appointment. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. No objections
have been raised. The Citation with proof of service on the proposed Conservatee has been filed.
The Capacity Declaration filed March 5, 2015 sets forth that Dr. McGee-Williams has assessed
the proposed Conservatee. The Court has not received Dr. McGee-Williams’ report. No report
has been filed by the Court Investigator. To provide time to complete the investigation and
report and submit the report of Dr. McGee-Williams, the hearing on the Petition for
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate is continued to Monday, March 30, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.
in Department 6. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
CONS OF MICHAEL E. LYMAN
Case Number: 18833
Tentative Ruling on Sixteenth Account and Report of Conservator and Biennial Review:
This proceeding is a Conservatorship of the Person and Estate.
Sixteenth Account and Report of the Conservator, and Petition for Allowance of
Fees to Conservator and Attorney: The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service
on file. No objections have been raised. The papers appear to be in order. The requested orders
are GRANTED as prayed. A proposed Order has been submitted and will be executed. The
matter is set for Seventeenth Account and Report of the Conservator on Monday, March 14,
2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar. The
clerk may return the lodged documents.
7
Biennial Review Hearing: The Court Investigator has requested a continuance to
complete her investigation and prepare the report. The matter is continued to Monday, March
23, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
CONS OF THOMAS E. PEARSON, SR.
Case Number: 28154
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Appointment of Conservator of the Person and Estate:
This matter is on for a Petition for Appointment of Conservator of the Person filed by the
proposed Conservatee’s daughter. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on
file. No objections have been raised. The Court notes there is an Order Appointing
Temporary Conservator which expires today.
In a Power of Attorney for Health Care executed in 2013, the proposed Conservatee
nominated his daughter as Conservator of his person. The Court Investigator has filed a
Memorandum setting forth that pursuant to Probate Code section 1826(o), because the proposed
Conservatee has personally nominated his own Conservator and plans to attend the hearing no
investigation is warranted. The Court has reviewed and considered the Capacity Declaration and
Dementia Attachment filed January 22, 2015, which recommend placement in a locked or
secured-perimeter facility as the least restrictive environment appropriate for the needs of the
proposed Conservatee. The Court defers ruling on the Petition until the time of the hearing, at
which time the Court will conduct an inquiry of the proposed Conservatee. The Court intends
to trail this to the end of the calendar to conduct the inquiry.
If the Petition is granted, the matter will be set for Confirmation of Filing of Care Plan
and Inventory and Appraisal on Monday, June 15, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6, and for
Annual Review and First Accounting and Report of Conservator on Monday, March 7, 2016 at
1:30 p.m. in Department 6.
CONS OF TAWANA S. STRINGER
Case Number: 24521
Tentative Ruling on Biennial Review Hearing: This proceeding is a Conservatorship of the
Person. The matter is on for further proceedings regarding the Biennial Review and the status of
the death certificate of the Conservatee. A certified copy of the death certificate having been
provided to the Court, the Court finds the conservatorship terminated as a matter of law. See
Probate Code § 1860(a). No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar. The Court shall
close its file.
CONS OF ALICE TAYLOR
Case Number: 21956
8
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Approval of Second and Final Account and Report of
Conservator, Petition for Settlement, Allowance of Fees to Conservator and Conservator’s
Attorney: This proceeding is a Conservatorship Estate only. On December 10, 2014, the Court
appointed Jerry Piper as the Successor Conservator. The former Conservator, Roy “Pete” Peters
was ordered to prepare a Final Account for the time period in which he served as Conservator.
The Second and Final Account and Report of Conservator was filed on February 18, 2015 on
behalf of the former Conservator, Roy “Pete” Peters. The matter has been properly noticed with
proof of service on file. No objections have been raised. The Second Account and attached
Exhibits/Schedules contain a number of minor errors:
• Exhibit 4 to the Second Account is identified as a copy of the Court’s October 20, 2014
order but appears to be a draft with handwritten notations of the proposed order on the
Second Account.
• In the Summary of Account on page 4 of the Second Account the sum of the Credits adds
up to $25,084.32 but does not match the “Total Credits” identified as $25,084.42.
• The value of the property on hand identified in the Second Account does not match the
totals identified on Schedule E or the Acknowledgement of Receipt of Conservatorship
Assets (Exhibit 1).
• In the Summary of Account on page 4 of the Second Account the Total Charges and
Total Credits do no match the Total Charges and Total Credits identified in the Summary
of Account (Judicial Council Form GC-400)
• The Total Receipts identified in Schedule A does not match the amount of “Income”
identified in the Summary of Account on page 4 of the Second Account
• The Summary of Account on page 4 of the Second Account identifies “Distributions to
Conservatee” as Schedule F when in fact it is attached as Schedule E
• The Summary of Account on page 4 of the Second Account identifies the “Value of
Property on Hand” as Schedule E when in fact it is attached as Schedule F.
There may be other errors which the Court has not ascertained. Because of the numerous
errors noted by the Court, the former Conservator must take care in preparing the Amended
Second Account. It is imperative to have an accurate final accounting from the former
Conservator to assure accurate accountings by the Successor Conservator. Counsel for Roy
“Pete” Peters is ordered to file an amended Second Account that addresses all accounting
issues and attaches the appropriate documents as Exhibits.
The matter is continued to Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6 to
permit the filing of an Amended Second Account. The Court notes the future court date of
October 26, 2015 for Annual Review. Because this is a Conservatorship of the Estate only, the
Annual Review date of October 26, 2015 is vacated. When the Second Account and Final
Report of the former Conservator is approved, the matter will be set for the First Account and
Report of the Successor Conservator. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
CONS OF LETICIA TAYLOR
Case Number: 27400
Erin McNally
Tentative Ruling on Further Proceeding on Six-Month Review of Conservatorship: A
Petition for a Limited Conservatorship of the Person was filed February 8, 1999, at which time
Janette Yount was appointed the Temporary Conservator and Erin McNally was appointed
9
attorney for the Conservatee. On May 6, 1999, the Conservatee signed a withdrawal of request
for jury trial and consent to Limited Conservatorship of the Person with Janette Yount as the
Conservator. On May 14, 2099, the Court appointed Janette Yount as Conservator. On June 19,
2013, the Court issued a Minute Order informing the parties that the Court Investigator reported
the Conservatee was contemplating seeking a termination of the Conservatorship. On July 28,
2014, the matter was before the Court for the Annual Review. The Court Investigator
recommended the Conservatorship continue. Counsel for the Conservatee requested a
continuance to meet with the Conservatee. The matter was continued to August 4, 2014, at
which time the Conservatee’s counsel reported that the Conservatee wished to contest the
continuation of the Conservatorship. The matter was set for trial on August 18, 2014, at which
time the Conservatee and Conservator testified. The Minute Order reflects it was agreed by all
parties that the Conservatorship should continue. The matter was set for February 23, 2015 for a
Six Month Review.
At the hearing on February 23, 2015, Counsel for the Conservatee requested a
continuance to meet with the Conservatee to ascertain whether she still wished to contest the
Limited Conservatorship. No Petition to Terminate the Conservatorship has been filed pursuant
to Probate Code section 1860.5.
The tentative ruling issued on February 23, 2015 remains the same with the exception of
the date for the next Annual Review: The Court has read and considered the Court Investigator’s
report filed February 10, 2015, which recommends continuation of the Conservatorship despite
the Conservatee’s preference that the Conservatorship be terminated. The Court FINDS by clear
and convincing evidence that the Conservatee continues to benefit from the safeguards of the
Conservatorship, the Conservator is acting in the best interest of the Conservatee, and ORDERS
the Conservatorship to continue. The matter is set for Annual Review on Monday, March 7,
2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6. No appearance is required on today’s calendar.
10
GUARDIANSHIPS
GDN OF LIVIA CROFOOT
Case Number: 28168
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person: On February 2,
2015 a Petition for Appointment of Guardian was filed by the Minor’s maternal aunt. An Order
Appointing Temporary Guardian issued on February 4, 2015, which expires today. No objection
to the Petition has been filed.
The Petition sets forth there may be Indian Ancestry. A Tribe must receive notice of
proceedings if there is reason to know the child, parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent of the
child is enrolled, or the family receives Indian services. According to the Petitioner, to the extent
she has been told there may be Comanche ancestry, she does not believe any family member is
enrolled or receives tribal services. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to complete and file with the
Court no later than ten days from today the Notice of Child Custody Proceedings for Indian
Child. See Judicial Council form ICWA-030.
The proof of service on the Mother and Maternal Grandparents sets forth the notice of
hearing was personally served. It appears to the Court that service was by mail. If service was
by mail, the Court ORDERS an amended proof of service be filed.
The Court has reviewed and considered the Court Investigator’s report filed March 6,
2015, which recommends granting the Petition. The Mother has actual notice of the hearing and
has informed the Court Investigator that she will appear and object. If the Mother objects to the
Petition, she must file a written objection which includes her name, address, and telephone
number so she can be provided with notice of all proceedings. If the Mother objects, the
Temporary Orders will remain in effect until the time of the next hearing. If the Mother does not
appear at the hearing, the Court intends to adopt the tentative ruling which follows.
The Court FINDS it would be detrimental for the child to be with either parent or any
parent objecting to the guardianship, the guardianship is in the child’s best interest and is
necessary and convenient. The proposed Guardian is suitable. The Court dispenses with notice
to the Father. The Court FINDS the Mother has actual notice of the hearing. The Petition has
otherwise been properly and timely noticed. The Court GRANTS the petition with visitation at
the discretion of the Guardians. A proposed Order Appointing Guardian has been lodged and
will be executed. The proposed additional orders attached to the Court Investigator’s report are
adopted by the Court and the Clerk is directed to attach said additional orders to the Order
Appointing Guardian. The Annual Review is set for Monday, March 7, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. in
Department 6. An appearance is required on today’s calendar.
GDN OF KAYTLIN & AUSTIN FULK
Case Number: 28170
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person: A Temporary
Order Appointing Temporary Guardians was denied on February 5, 2015. There is no proof of
service of the hearing. The Court has reviewed and considered the Court Investigator’s report
11
filed February 27, 2015 and agrees with the recommendation to deny the Petition. The Petitioner
did not meet with the Court Investigator and the whereabouts of the Petitioner and the Minors is
unknown. The Court FINDS it would be detrimental for the Minors to be with Petitioner, and
the guardianship would not be in the Minors’ best interest. The Petition is DENIED. The Court
will inquire of the Court Investigator whether referral to another agency to assess the welfare of
the Minors is recommended. The proposed Guardian is ORDERED to appear. If there is no
appearance by the Guardian, the Petition will be dismissed and the file closed.
GDN OF JACOB HARPER-POPP
Case Number: 28072
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Termination of Guardianship: On November 17, 2014, an
Order Appointing Guardian of the Person issued, appointing Craig Popp and Tina Marie Jenkins
as Guardians. The matter is on calendar today for the Petition for Termination of Guardianship
filed by the Minor’s Mother on February 5, 2015.
Attached to the Petition is an unsigned, typewritten document purportedly from CoGuardian Tina Jenkins. The document sets forth that Ms. Jenkins no longer can be the Guardian
for the Minor and has moved out of the household of Co-Guardian Craig Popp, who is the
Minor’s Paternal Grandfather.
The Court has reviewed and considered the Court Investigator’s report filed March 6,
2015, which recommends granting the Petition. Law enforcement and Children and Family
Services have become involved due to allegations involving the Co-Guardian, Craig Popp. In
addition, Mr. Popp was allegedly allowing the Minor to have unsupervised visits with the
Minor’s Father. The Minor has been placed by Children and Family Services with the Mother.
The Court Investigator met with Mr. Popp. Mr. Popp denies the allegations, but does not object
to the Petition.
There is no proof of service of the notice of hearing. The whereabouts of the Father is
unknown to the Mother, and the Guardians do not object to terminating the Guardianship. The
Court finds good cause to dispense with notice. The Petition for Termination of Guardianship is
GRANTED. A proposed Order was lodged and will be executed. The Annual Review hearing
set for November 16, 2015 is vacated. No appearance is required on today’s calendar. The
Court shall close its file.
GND OF SKYLAR & HAYLE JOHNSON-BOLES
Case Number: 28198
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Appointment of Temporary Guardian: On March 3, 2015,
a Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Persons was filed along with a Petition for
Appointment of Temporary Guardian. The matter is on calendar today on the Petition for
Appointment of Temporary Guardian, having been set by the Court. The Declaration Re Notice
of Ex Parte Application for Temporary Order was filed March 5, 2015 and sets forth the Mother
was notified by telephone of the hearing. The Court intends to inquire of the Petitioner/Paternal
Grandmother whether the Mother consents to the appointment of Petitioner as Temporary
Guardian. If Mother does not consent, the Court will inquire why it would be detrimental for the
12
Minors to be in the care of their Mother in Oceanside while the Father is recovering from his
medical condition. The Petitioner is ORDERED to appear for today’s proceeding.
GDN OF LEANN LAVOY
Case Number: 25957
Public Defender
Tentative Ruling on Annual Review and Order to Show Cause: On March 4, 2015, the
Guardian filed the required Confidential Guardianship Status Report. The Order to Show Cause
is DISCHARGED with no monetary sanctions ordered. However, there is information in the
Status Report which causes the Court concern. The Court intends to address section 2c of the
Status Report, which sets forth that the child is not now living in her home, and to address the
event referenced in section 4e. The next Annual Review is Monday, March 7, 2016 at 2:30
p.m. in Department 6. The Guardian is ORDERED to appear at today’s hearing.
GDN OF ABIGAIL MCDONALD
Case Number: 28107
Case Number 27857
Public Defender
Tentative Ruling on Further Proceeding Regarding Petition for Appointment of Guardian,
Setting for Contested Hearing and Confirmation of Counsel in Case Number 28107 and
Further Proceedings Regarding Petition for Appointment of Successor Guardian as to
Abigail McDonald in Case Number 27857, Setting for Contested Hearing and Confirmation
of Counsel: This matter is on calendar today to confirm counsel for the Minor and to set a
contested hearing on competing Petitions. An appearance is required. The Order Appointing
Judith Hill Temporary Guardian of Abigail remains in effect until the time of the next hearing.
GDN OF VICTOR PENN-NASH
Case Number: 28143
Tentative Ruling on Further Proceedings for Petitioner for Appointment of Guardian of
the Person: A Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person was filed December 31,
2014. The Petition was filed by the Minor, who is over twelve years of age. The Minor is
currently living with the proposed Guardians and attends school with the son of the proposed
Guardians. The Petition was before the Court for hearing on March 2, 2015, which had been
properly and timely noticed as to the Mother. The Father is deceased and the grandparents are
unknown to the Minor. The Court had reviewed and considered the Court Investigator’s report
filed January 29, 2015 and set forth in the tentative ruling its agreement with the
recommendation to grant the guardianship. The Mother appeared at the hearing and orally
objected to the Petition. At the Mother’s request, the matter was continued to today. The
Mother reported that she was retaining Verlin Johnson.
If the Mother objects to the Petition, she must file a written objection. If she is not
represented by counsel, her written objection must include her name, address, and telephone
13
number so she can be provided with notice of all proceedings. If the Mother objects, the
Temporary Orders will remain in effect until the time of the next hearing. Counsel will be
appointed for the Minor if the matter proceeds to a contested hearing. If the Mother does not
appear at the hearing, the Court intends to adopt the tentative ruling which follows.
The Court FINDS it would be detrimental for the child to be with the Mother. The
Father is deceased. The guardianship is in the child’s best interest and is necessary and
convenient. The proposed Guardians are suitable. The Court GRANTS the petition with
visitation at the discretion of the Guardians. A proposed Order Appointing Guardian has been
lodged and will be executed. The Annual Review is set for Monday, March 7, 2016 at 2:30
p.m. in Department 6. An appearance is required on today’s calendar.
GDN OF ATHENA RUIZ, REGINA CROY, WILLIAM CROY &
JAKOBY CROY
Case Number: 28174
Tentative Ruling on Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person: The Court
Investigator’s report filed February 27, 2015 sets forth that Petitioners, Angie and Randy
McMullen (Maternal Great Aunt and Uncle), are expected to request dismissal of the Petition.
Unless a Request for Dismissal is filed before the hearing, an appearance is required.
GDN OF SEAN MICHAEL SANDERS
Case Number: 26332
Tentative Ruling on Annual Review: The Petition for Guardianship of the Person was filed
October 29, 2009 by the Paternal Grandfather, Jack Sanders. On March 16, 2010, Petitioner was
appointed the Guardian. The annual Confidential Guardianship Status Report was to have been
submitted to the Court no later than February 20, 2015. The report has not been submitted. The
Guardian is ORDERED to appear at today’s hearing and to submit his Annual Status
Report at the time of the hearing. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an Order
to Show Cause Why Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $250.00 should not be ordered
for violating the Court’s order to appear and to file the report.
GDN OF AADEN, RYDER & BENNET SCHELL
Case Number: 28148
Public Defender
Tentative Ruling on Further Proceedings Regarding Petition for Appointment of Guardian
of the Person: This Petition was filed on January 8, 2015 by Karenlee Schell, the Paternal
Grandmother. On January 12, 2015, the Paternal Grandmother was appointed Temporary
Guardian. On February 9, 2015, the consent signed by the Mother and Father was filed. The
Court Investigator’s report filed February 10, 2015 recommends granting the Petition.
The Petition was before the Court for hearing on February 23, 2015. The Court had
reviewed and considered the Court Investigator’s report filed February 10, 2015 and set forth in
14
the tentative ruling its agreement with the recommendation to grant the guardianship. The
Maternal Grandmother, Sara Deforest, appeared at the hearing with counsel and orally objected
to the Petition. Counsel was appointed for the Minors, and the matter was continued to today for
confirmation of counsel and setting of contested hearing.
If there is an objection to the Petition, a written objection must be filed. The Temporary
Orders will remain in effect until the time of the next hearing. If there is no objection at the time
of today’s hearing, the Court intends to adopt the tentative ruling which follows.
The Court FINDS it would be detrimental for the children to be with either parent. The
guardianship is in the children’s best interest and is necessary and convenient. The proposed
Guardian is suitable. The Court GRANTS the petition with visitation at the discretion of the
Guardians. A proposed Order Appointing Guardian has been lodged and will be executed. The
proposed additional orders attached to the Court Investigator’s report are adopted by the Court
and the Clerk is directed to attach said additional orders to the Order Appointing Guardian. The
Annual Review is set for Monday, March 7, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 6. An
appearance is required on today’s calendar.
GDN OF BENTLEY SHAW-WARNER
Case Number: 27991
1:45
Tentative Ruling on Further Proceedings Regarding Status of Both Mother and Father’s
Treatment Programs: On July 31, 2014, a Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person
was filed by the paternal grandparents, who were then appointed Guardians on September 8,
2014. On that same date, the Court ordered the Parents to continue with their treatment
programs and to bring a detailed report of their progress to today’s hearing. The Mother is in a
treatment program at Shasta Treatment Center. The Father is in a treatment program at Wright
Roads. The matter is set today for the status of these treatment programs. The Court notes the
future court date of September 14, 2015 for Annual Review. The Guardians and Parents are
ORDERED to appear to review the progress the Parents are making in their treatment
programs.
15