Stuart v. Vaughan
207 Cal. App. 4th 1055
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Guardianship petition filed by appellants’ grandparents (Stuarts) for the children, temporary custody granted, then guardianship petition denied by trial court.
- Family Code 3041 sets a default detriment standard for nonparent custody, with a stability-based subsection (c) creating a rebuttable presumption in certain de facto-parent scenarios.
- Trial court held Stuarts did not qualify under 3041(c) because the children were not abandoned to them and the evidence did not show detriment; denied guardianship under 3041(a)-(b).
- Court appointed multiple experts; psychologists and therapists supported keeping children with the Stuarts due to stability and child wellbeing.
- Court on appeal reversed the judgment, holding the stable placement presumption under 3041(c) does not depend on abandonment and remand is required for proper procedural application; custody remains with Ann Marie pending remand.
- Opinion modified and remanded to a different trial judge for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3041(c) applies without abandonment | Stuarts qualify as de facto guardians under 3041(c) despite no abandonment. | Abandonment is a prerequisite for 3041(c) application. | 3041(c) applies without abandonment; remand for rebuttal proceedings is required. |
| Whether the stable placement presumption was properly applied | Evidence shows Stuarts provided stable, ongoing care. | Court misapplied the presumption by focusing on abandonment and intent. | Remand to allow rebuttal of the stable placement presumption. |
| What showing is required after rebutting the presumption | If presumption rebutted, prove by clear and convincing evidence that guardianship is in best interest and that return would be detrimental. | Court did not complete 3041(a)-(b) analysis due to misapplication of 3041(c). | On remand, apply 3041(a)-(b) with current circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardianship of L.V., 136 Cal.App.4th 481 (2006) (standard of review; interpretation of 3041, de novo for law, substantial evidence for facts)
- Guardianship of Ann S., 45 Cal.4th 1110 (2009) (stability and de facto parent doctrine in probate guardianships; 3041(c) focus on stable placement)
- In re Kieshia E., 6 Cal.4th 68 (1993) (de facto parent doctrine; standing in guardianship/placement cases)
- In re B. G., 11 Cal.3d 679 (1974) (parental fitness not sole determinant; best interests governs guardianship)
- Christina K. v. Superior Court, 184 Cal.App.3d 1463 (1986) (de facto parent status; custody considerations in guardianship)