Mark G. v. John G.
195 Cal. App. 4th 581
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- John G. appeals a probate guardianship appointing Mark and Tina G. to Chris G., contending the court failed to follow §1513, subd. (c) by not referring to CPS for dependency investigation.
- Chris, age four, is developmentally delayed and possibly autistic; concerns about parental capabilities and relatives’ suitability motivate the guardianship petition.
- Mark sought temporary guardianship after discovering Chris in unsafe conditions; Chris traveled with Mark and Tina to Santa Clarita and was diagnosed with mild autism.
- Bates, the probate investigator, recommended Mark and Tina; John argued Mark’s criminal history and alleged neglect made him unfit; Bates criticized John’s mental health and denial of autism.
- The probate court granted permanent guardianship to Mark and Tina in 2010; John was unrepresented for part of proceedings and appealed, asserting §1513(c) error and related due-process issues.
- The appellate court held §1513(c) mandatory for cases alleging parental unfitness and reversed/remanded for CPS referral, noting the probate process lacks dependency safeguards and reunification focuses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1513(c) requires CPS referral when unfitness is alleged | John argues mandatory CPS referral is required by §1513(c). | Guardians contend no CPS referral was required or its absence harmless. | Referral mandatory; failure requires reversal and remand. |
| Whether lack of CPS referral invalidates the guardianship order | John contends the order is void due to procedural failings and denied protections. | Guardians claim no automatic reversal, arguing potential harmless error. | Error not harmless; order vacated and remanded for CPS referral. |
| Whether probate guardianship should follow dependency procedures | John argues dependency protections (counsel, reunification, ongoing review) apply via CPS. | Guardians argue probate route suffices with different standards. | No second path; dependency framework governs when allegations trigger guardianship via CPS. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tracy A. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 1309 (Cal. App. Ct. 2004) (probate may refer to CPS for dependency investigation)
- Judith P. v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.4th 535 (Cal. App. Ct. 2002) (mandatory status report prior to hearing; due process protection)
- In re Manzy W., 14 Cal.4th 1199 (Cal. 1997) (mandatory duties may be harmless if protections otherwise provided)
- Kaylee J., 55 Cal.App.4th 1425 (Cal. App. Ct. 1997) (dependency vs. probate guardianship pathways; family placement)
- Stephen G. (Guardianship of Stephen G.), 40 Cal.App.4th 1418 (Cal. App. Ct. 1995) (parental rights protections in guardianship context)
- In re Elizabeth R., 35 Cal.App.4th 1774 (Cal. App. Ct. 1995) (reunification services and parental rights protections)