Return Home
Delinquency
Dependency
Other
Case Law
Rules and Forms
Publications
Self Help
Grants
Calendar
About Us
Resources
Programs
FAQ
Links
Search
Site Map


Other Cases Affecting Children

Guardianship of Kassandra and Paige H. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1228 [75 Cal.Rptr.2d 668]. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3.

Protracted marital difficulties between a married couple led to domestic altercations. The children were sent to live with their maternal grandmother who became their legal guardian. After the guardianship was established the father began to overcome his alcohol problem and was sober for the three years prior to his filing a petition to terminate the guardianship. The trial court judge terminated the guardianship after "some real legal soul searching" over whether the children should be returned where it was no longer detrimental to return the children but not in their best interest to do so. But the judge stayed termination of the guardianship pending the grandmother's appeal.

The Court of Appeal reviewed Probate Code section 1601 which states: "Upon petition of the guardian, a parent, or the ward, the court may make an order terminating the guardianship if the court determines that it is no longer necessary that the ward have a guardian or that it is in the ward's best interest to terminate the guardianship." The court found that the trial court had improperly defined "no longer necessary." The appellate court found that, in contrast to juvenile court where detriment is the standard, the trial court must determine whether the overall moral fitness of the parent seeking termination of the guardianship outweighs the inherent trauma of removing a child from a caregiver. The court further noted that a parent's ability to correct the problem that brought rise to the guardianship, in this case the father's alcohol problem, is not sufficient to justify terminating a guardianship. Instead, it must be in the child's best interest to terminate the guardianship due to the change of circumstances. But the court clearly stated that "no longer necessary" is not synonymous with "best interest." Instead, "[t]he `no longer necessary' language of section 1601 necessarily requires a showing of overall fitness on the part of the natural parent seeking to end the guardianship sufficient to overcome the inherent trauma of removing a successful caregiver."