A.H. v. Superior Court
162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 640
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Grandmother was appointed probate guardian of several grandchildren in San Mateo in 2004; dependency proceedings concerning the children were filed in San Francisco in 2010 after allegations of abuse.
- Minors' counsel filed motions under Welf. & Inst. Code § 728 to terminate the predependency probate guardianship and § 388 to change placement; hearings occurred in 2012.
- The juvenile court granted the § 728 motion terminating Grandmother’s probate guardianship and granted the § 388 petition placing the two youngest minors with an aunt and uncle; Grandmother appealed.
- The San Francisco Human Services Agency twice recommended dismissing dependency proceedings, but the juvenile court set a § 366.26 permanency-planning hearing; Grandmother sought writ review of that setting.
- The Court of Appeal consolidated the appeal and writ, stayed the § 366.26 hearing, and addressed whether the juvenile court could terminate a predependency probate guardianship absent an agency recommendation or a probate-court order, and related claims about removal standards and reunification services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court may terminate a predependency probate guardianship under § 728 when the motion is filed by minors' counsel (not the agency) | Grandmother: § 728 requires an agency/probation recommendation before termination; Angel S. supports agency-led procedure | Minors/juvenile court: § 728 expressly authorizes minors' counsel to file the motion; no precondition of agency recommendation | Juvenile court may terminate under § 728 on motion by minors' counsel; prior holding in In re A.D. controls; affirmed |
| Whether a juvenile-court termination of a probate guardianship is ineffective without a probate-court order confirming it | Grandmother: probate-court order required to make termination effective; otherwise probate rights continue | Minors/juvenile court: § 728 and rules make juvenile-court order effective and require notice to probate court; no confirmation order needed | Termination by juvenile court is effective without a probate-court order; juvenile court order controls while dependency pending |
| Standard required to remove minors from current placement after termination (clear-and-convincing detriment v. best interest) | Grandmother: removal required clear-and-convincing finding of detriment under § 361(c) because she was a predependency guardian | Minors/juvenile court: once guardianship terminated, Grandmother was no longer a predependency guardian; change of placement under § 388 may be based on minors' best interest | After termination, lower best-interest standard applies to placement changes; court properly used best-interest standard |
| Entitlement to reunification services after guardianship termination | Grandmother: she should have been offered reunification services before minors were removed | Minors/juvenile court: § 361.5 requires services only for parents or predependency guardians; once guardianship terminated, no statutory entitlement | No entitlement to further reunification services after termination; court correctly denied services |
| Setting of § 366.26 permanency hearing while appeal/writ pending | Grandmother: setting was improper because termination was invalid | Minors/juvenile court: setting was proper given juvenile-court orders and agency recommendations; procedural stay was temporary | Writ petition denied; § 366.26 hearing setting not invalidated (stay later dissolved and new date to be set as appropriate) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Angel S., 156 Cal.App.4th 1202 (Cal. Ct. App.) (juvenile court may terminate probate guardianship and described agency-recommendation procedure when agency initiates)
- In re William T., 172 Cal.App.3d 790 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussed historical jurisdictional allocation over custody; superseded by later statutes)
- In re Gloria A., 213 Cal.App.4th 476 (Cal. Ct. App.) (UCCJEA jurisdiction issue; not controlling where juvenile court has subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Guardianship of L.V., 136 Cal.App.4th 481 (Cal. Ct. App.) (best-interest standard governs termination of probate guardianship under Probate Code § 1601)
- In re M.C., 199 Cal.App.4th 784 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standards of statutory interpretation and scope of appellate review)
- In re Michael D., 51 Cal.App.4th 1074 (Cal. Ct. App.) (section 388 placement changes for nonparent/non-guardian custody governed by best interest; abuse-of-discretion review)
- In re Merrick V., 122 Cal.App.4th 235 (Cal. Ct. App.) (predependency guardianship may be terminated before offering reunification services)
- In re Carlos E., 129 Cal.App.4th 1408 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpretation that § 361.5 references predependency guardians and limits reunification obligations)