DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26PG-0033277·shasta·Probate·Guardianship of the Person
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

GUARDIANSHIP OF RHIANNON MARTIN

Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person

Hearing date
Jul 13, 2026
Department
42
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 17, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTanisha Aroyan

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 26PG-0033277 This matter is on calendar for further proceedings on a Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person. The Petition was filed by the minor’s aunt, Tanisha Aroyan. Letters of Temporary Guardianship issued on March 10, 2026, and are set to expire today unless further extended.

A new Notice of Hearing has been filed for today’s date; however, there is no proof of service of the Notice of Hearing and Petition for the minor, mother, father, or paternal grandmother. Insufficient information has been provided to permit the Court to dispense with notice to these parties. The minor, mother, and father must be personally served in order to move forward on the Petition. Prob. Code § 1511(b). The paternal grandmother may be served by mail. Prob. Code § 1511(c). Alternatively, the above parties can sign a consent and waiver of notice (GC-211, section 4), in lieu of being served.

The Court has reviewed the Court Investigator’s report April 21, 2026, which recommends granting the Petition. The Court will inquire whether the child is or may be an Indian child. If Petitioner has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, they must make further inquiry to learn about the child’s Indian heritage.

This matter is continued to Monday, August 17, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 42 for further proceedings on the Petition. The Temporary Guardianship is ORDERED to remain in effect until the continued hearing date. Petitioner is required to file and serve a new Notice of Hearing for the continued hearing date, along with a copy of the Petition, on the parties identified above. In the alternative, if Petitioner cannot serve the parties identified, the Court will require a declaration explaining in detail all efforts of Petitioner to locate and serve them and why they cannot be served, to permit the Court to dispense with notice. Warning: Failure to properly effect service or provide adequate basis to dispense with service as to the necessary parties will result in denial of the Petition. Notice is preserved. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

GUARDIANSHIP OF MILA NELSON

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share